pillar_dca_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (top partnerships by streak, your entry highlighted) and implicitly establishes a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not say whether the call requires a registered DCA position, how many entries are returned, or whether the leaderboard is global or scoped.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by a short pointer. The promotional tip is mildly tangential but brief enough not to dilute the opening.

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 zero-argument read-only tool with no output schema, describing the return content (ranked partnerships, own entry highlighted) covers what an agent needs to know before calling. Minor gaps remain around result size and whether a wallet/identity context is required.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, consistent with the empty properties object.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('View the DCA streak leaderboard') and specifies what it displays: top partnerships ranked by streak length plus the caller's own entry. That is concrete and actionable, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling pillar_direct_dca_leaderboard, nor from adjacent tools like pillar_dca_partners or pillar_dca_status.

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?

Usage is only implied: checking rankings is self-evidently what a leaderboard call is for. There is no statement of when to prefer this over pillar_dca_partners/pillar_dca_status, no prerequisites, and the 'Tip' points to earning_opportunities as a next step rather than as an alternative to this call.

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