reputation_leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the explicit 'Behavior: read-only' line mostly repeats structured data. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing that the data is public, free to call, and what payload it contains (stake, tier, slash count).

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by a use/avoid clause and a behavior note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the returned fields and the ranking basis (active stake), which is what an agent needs. It stops short of mentioning ordering guarantees or pagination, but that is a minor gap for a one-parameter 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or default details beyond that, which matches the baseline-3 rule for high coverage.

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 resource (public leaderboard of agents) and the exact fields returned: active stake, tier, slash count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the filtered-search sibling reputation_query, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' clause plus a 'Not for...' exclusion naming the alternative tool (reputation_query) and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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