get_leaderboard

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

Annotations already have readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. Description adds that the tool returns an empty array if no operators have submitted, and always fetches the full public leaderboard. This extra context justifies a 4.

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?

Description is well-structured but slightly lengthy. It front-loads key information and uses clear sentences, but could be more concise without losing detail.

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?

Description covers purpose, usage, return format (with field descriptions), edge case (empty array), and follow-up suggestions. No gaps given the simplicity of the tool and presence of output schema.

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 zero parameters. Description reinforces that it takes no parameters and explains why (always fetches full leaderboard). Although no parameter details needed, the description adds value by clarifying the returned fields.

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?

Clearly states it fetches the live public SigRank leaderboard from signalaf.com, lists the metrics included (yield, leverage ratio, velocity, class tier, rank position), and distinguishes itself from get_operator. Verb+resource+scope is specific.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (to see standings, find codenames, display rankings) and when not to (if you already know your codename, use get_operator instead). Also recommends follow-up with get_operator for detailed metrics.

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