nansen: nansen_pnl_leaderboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that the tool requires a token contract address and shows wallet profit info, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result detail beyond the output hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key constraint ('SPECIFIC TOKEN CONTRACT'), with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple leaderboard tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, required inputs, and output type. It could mention the per_page parameter or provide more detail on the output format, but it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description reiterates the requirement for a token contract address but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves a PnL leaderboard for a specific token contract, distinguishing it from a global wallet leaderboard. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PnL leaderboard for a specific token contract'), and the contrast with alternatives is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use when you have a specific token address, not for global wallet leaderboards. However, it does not mention alternatives among sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the global/contract distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.