Generate leaderboard card

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing data source resolution ('~/.pm-trader locally, the caller's own directory in remote mode') and valuation semantics ('Open positions are valued at live midpoints (0 if a lookup fails)'), which tells the agent results are live-marked and degrade gracefully rather than erroring. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is pure added context.

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-loads the core action and ranking rule, then layers scoping, source resolution, and edge-case behavior compactly with no filler. The line breaks around the sibling pointer read slightly awkwardly, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only, output-schema-backed card tool, the description covers ranking metric, inclusion threshold, data root scoping, and mark-to-market behavior with failure fallback — everything needed to call it and interpret results. Return format is delegated to the output schema, which exists.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not restate it. The description adds only the 10+ trades ranking threshold, not account-name syntax or ordering semantics, 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 chain and resource: 'Rank accounts with 10+ trades by ROI% and return a Top 10 leaderboard card.' The inclusion threshold and ranking metric let an agent distinguish it from stats/stats_card and the entry/battle card siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use leaderboard_entry for one account's record or pk_card for two,' which cleanly partitions the three card tools by scope. The 10+ trade inclusion rule and the empty-accounts default define when the call is applicable.

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