madeonsol_alpha_leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are truncated per tier (25/100/500) and ULTRA includes bot signals. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing data limitations and tier-dependent behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines the tool, second explains tier limits. Information is front-loaded and efficiently packaged.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description explains the nature of the output (leaderboard of profitable wallets) and mentions tier-based data limitations. For a simple list-type tool, this is nearly complete; missing only explicit return fields.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds no further meaning to parameters (sort, period, min_tokens, exclude_bots). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns 'Top statistically profitable early-buyer wallets' from a large dataset, clearly distinguishing it from sibling leaderboards that focus on KOLs or scouts. The verb 'scored' and mention of tier limits add specificity.

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 this tool is for analyzing early-buyer wallet profitability, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'madeonsol_kol_leaderboard' or 'madeonsol_scout_leaderboard'. No exclusions or context-aware guidance is provided.

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