Get Leaderboard Top

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Gets' implies a read, but the description never states auth requirements, whether the board is scoped to the API key, pagination behavior, or ordering/direction of 'top'. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter note. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage and behavioral context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description would ideally clarify return shape, ordering, and API-key scoping. It covers the basic call mechanic and the default-board behavior, which is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent.

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 userId, limit, and leaderboardKey including defaults and ranges. The description adds only the default-board fallback for leaderboardKey, which is a modest restatement of the schema's own wording, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Gets the top entries from a horizOn leaderboard,' which tells an agent exactly what the call returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like horizon_get_leaderboard_around or horizon_get_user_rank, but the 'top entries' framing implicitly separates it from those.

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 only guidance is how to target a board via leaderboardKey, which is parameter usage rather than when-to-use. There is no statement of when this tool is preferred over horizon_get_user_rank or horizon_get_leaderboard_around, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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