get_leaderboard

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context that is not already captured: the data is 'live' and 'public', results are 'sorted by yield', the exact metric formulas (Υ = Cache Reads × Output / Input²) are given, and the empty-array behavior when no operators have submitted is disclosed. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: it explains the resource, the sort order, the return fields, the edge case, and provides usage and exclusions. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core action, followed by details and alternatives. No unnecessary filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description still thoroughly explains all returned fields (codename, yield, leverage ratio, velocity, class tier, rank) and the empty-array behavior. This makes the tool's behavior fully understandable even without inspecting the output schema, covering all necessary context for a zero-parameter read-only 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description and schema both confirm that it takes no parameters and always fetches the full leaderboard. Since there are no parameters to explain, this score 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 explicitly states 'Fetches the live public SigRank leaderboard from signalaf.com' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_operator by noting that get_operator should be used for single-operator profiles. This is a clear, specific purpose that differentiates from alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to see where operators stand overall, to find specific codenames for get_operator lookups, or to display the current rankings.' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction: 'Do NOT use this to check your own rank if you already know your codename — use get_operator instead.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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