get_hl_top_traders_by_pnl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two operationally relevant traits: no authentication required and a 15-minute cache. It omits return shape and any rate-limit or pagination behavior, but the hard facts an agent needs before calling are present.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of operational notes. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 parameterless, read-only leaderboard endpoint with no output schema, the description covers scope, granularity, auth, and caching well. What is missing is only a pointer to the sibling tools it overlaps with.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, which would normally set a baseline of 4. However, the description introduces a 'day/week/month' dimension that maps to no input field, so an agent may hunt for a timeframe argument that does not exist. The mismatch costs a point.

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?

The description names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Get top 30 HyperLiquid perp traders ranked by PnL.' The 'by PnL' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_hl_top_traders, but the distinction is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing away from the near-identical sibling get_hl_top_traders. The agent must infer that this is a leaderboard/discovery call and guess how it differs from the other top-trader tools.

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