Get leaderboard entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them by noting it reads the local account and that open positions are valued at live midpoints with a 0 fallback on lookup failure, plus the 'qualified' (10+ trades) semantics.

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 ('Return one account's standardized leaderboard record as JSON') before fields, behavior, and alternatives. It is tight though mildly redundant, since enumerating the record's fields overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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 one-param read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: scope (single account), data semantics, the live-midpoint valuation caveat, and explicit sibling routing.

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 'account' parameter is fully documented there, including the default and naming constraints. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-heavy documentation 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one account's standardized leaderboard record as JSON'), plus enumerates the fields included. It explicitly distinguishes itself from leaderboard_card (ranking) and stats (analysis), so an agent can disambiguate among siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition selecting each: 'Use leaderboard_card to rank many accounts, or stats for analysis.' This gives explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-otherwise guidance rather than leaving routing to inference.

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