leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not stated, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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?

The description is well-structured with a title, brief intro, and bullet points for type options. It is concise but includes bilingual text (Chinese and English) which adds length. Each sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main functionality and parameter details. However, it omits potential issues like error handling, pagination, or data freshness. For a simple tool with two parameters, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining each value of the 'type' parameter in detail, including ranking criteria and default. The 'top_n' parameter is also briefly described. However, it does not include parameter constraints or formats beyond what is implied.

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 clearly states the tool is for viewing platform-wide rankings ('Celestial Leaderboard — View platform-wide rankings.') and lists specific leaderboard types with ranking criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., my_realm, forge_agent) by its unique function of aggregating rankings across the platform.

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 implies usage for viewing rankings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. The different types provide some context, but no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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