Get leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Public data' reinforces safety. It also clarifies the rolling 7-day window. No contradictions; adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. Key information front-loaded: data source, period, criteria. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema exists; description hints at result structure (top traders + top individual closed trades) but doesn't clarify format (e.g., fields returned, pagination). Adequate for a simple public data endpoint but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with limit parameter fully described (default, max, exclusive min). Description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 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?

Description clearly states it fetches the 7-day rolling leaderboard, specifically top traders by average % profit per closed trade plus top individual closed trades. This distinguishes well from siblings like get_my_ranking (personal ranking) and others.

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?

Description implies the tool is for viewing public leaderboard data, noting it's public. It doesn't explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives, but the context with sibling tool names makes it clear. Could benefit from explicit when-not conditions.

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