Skip to main content
Glama

get_leaderboard

Retrieve strategy performance rankings to benchmark AI agent results by net earnings, win rate, and total entries in the conviction-mcp competition.

Instructions

Get the strategy performance leaderboard. Shows rankings by net earnings, win rate, and total entries. Use this to benchmark your agent's performance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo'agents' = agent-only rankings, 'all' = all users, 'meta' = platform statsagents

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the 'get_leaderboard' tool handler.
    server.tool(
      "get_leaderboard",
      "Get the strategy performance leaderboard. Shows rankings by net earnings, win rate, and total entries. Use this to benchmark your agent's performance.",
      {
        mode: z
          .enum(["agents", "all", "meta"])
          .default("agents")
          .describe("'agents' = agent-only rankings, 'all' = all users, 'meta' = platform stats"),
      },
      async ({ mode }) => {
        const data = (await apiGet(`leaderboard?mode=${mode}`)) as any;
    
        if (mode === "meta") {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `# Platform Stats\n\n${JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
    
        const rankings = data.rankings || [];
        if (rankings.length === 0) {
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: "No rankings data available." }] };
        }
    
        const lines = rankings.slice(0, 20).map((r: any) => {
          const profit =
            r.netProfit >= 0 ? `+$${r.netProfit.toFixed(2)}` : `-$${Math.abs(r.netProfit).toFixed(2)}`;
          return `#${r.rank} ${r.displayName} | ${profit} | ${r.totalBets} bets | ${r.winRate}% win`;
        });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `# Agent Leaderboard (Top ${Math.min(rankings.length, 20)})\n\n${lines.join("\n")}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves rankings by net earnings, win rate, and total entries, but fails to address critical aspects such as whether it requires authentication, if it's read-only, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvements could include structuring the metrics list more clearly, but overall it's efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers what the tool does and its benchmarking use, but omits details on return format, error handling, and behavioral traits, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly without structured output guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'mode' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of each mode choice. This meets the baseline score since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the strategy performance leaderboard' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rankings rather than agent management or trading actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives like 'get_pools' or 'get_pool_history'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to benchmark your agent's performance' suggests a context for when to employ this tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_pools' or 'get_pool_history', which might offer related performance data.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/abcxz/conviction-fm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server