Leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds extensive behavioral details: bounded scan/filter, per-axis breakdown, optional on-chain verification, coverage state, and self-declared text slots, going well 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?

The description is relatively short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it uses domain-specific jargon that may reduce clarity for some agents. Every sentence adds value, but could be more accessible.

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 output schema exists (not shown in input), the description covers key aspects: boundedness, 3-axis, breakdown, verification, coverage, self-declared. It does not mention return format or pagination, but those may be in output schema. Adequate for the 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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds context for verify (optional verification) and trust (enum meaning) but does not explain mpp, x402, limit, hasServices, or minExplorerScore beyond schema. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 retrieves top-ranked agents via a bounded registry scan with per-axis breakdown, using a 3-axis engine. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_agent or rank_agent by specifying leaderboard-specific features (bounded scan, breakdown, on-chain verification).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rank_agent or list_agents. The description implies usage for leaderboard queries but does not provide context or exclusions.

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