leaderboard_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the ranking rule, account qualification, scanning path (~/.pm-trader/), and filtering behavior, which is meaningful. But it does not explicitly state that generating a card is read-only and has no side effects, and it does not describe what a 'card' is or where it is written, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by ranking details and a conditional usage rule. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior: generation, ranking criteria, account filtering, and default scanning scope. It could briefly mention the expected output form or edge cases (e.g., no qualified accounts), but these are mostly covered by the output schema and the description is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the comma-separated format for 'accounts' and what happens when it is omitted (scan all accounts). This goes well beyond the bare schema definition.

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 clearly states it generates a Top 10 leaderboard card and ranks qualified accounts by ROI%, giving a specific verb, resource, and ranking logic. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like stats_card or leaderboard_entry, but the 'card' and 'Top 10' language makes the main purpose distinct enough.

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?

It gives useful usage context for the 'accounts' parameter (comma-separated filter vs. all accounts), and the '10+ trades' qualification defines the target population. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like leaderboard_entry or stats_card, leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.

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