agora_arena_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: points and rating are reported separately and no truth_score is emitted. That is useful, but it omits safety/permission profile and any hint that this is a non-mutating read, so coverage is only partial.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. It is as terse as it can be while still stating the output shape distinction.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain the return payload, and its note about omitted truth_score is a bonus. However, the domain parameter's semantics and the tool's placement among siblings remain unexplained, leaving real gaps for a read tool.

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% and the description never mentions the 'domain' parameter at all, not even that it defaults to 'global' or what values it accepts. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('Arena leaderboard projection'), so the agent knows this surfaces a ranked standings view. 'Projection' is jargon that isn't unpacked, and there is no explicit differentiation from the many other read-style siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It never says when to reach for this tool versus other read tools such as agora_world_pulse or agora_agent_reputation, nor does it explain the role of the domain parameter (default 'global'). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are given.

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