Strategy leaderboard with verified live results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that rankings come from 'live closed signals only (no backtests), net of fees.' This provides important context about data sourcing and cost treatment beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag.

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, front-loaded with the trigger scenario and key metrics. Every word contributes to understanding when and why to use the tool. 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 no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, data source, and usage trigger. It explains the computed metrics and the scope of signals, making it complete for a leaderboard retrieval tool.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-param tools is 4. It mentions the computed metrics, which are implicit outputs rather than parameters, and that is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Call this when the user asks') and resource ('which trading strategies are performing best'), and enumerates the exact metrics (win rate, profit factor, drawdown, Sharpe). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on strategy-level leaderboard data rather than symbol or signal-level data.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided ('Call this when the user asks which trading strategies are performing best, or wants win rate, profit factor, drawdown and Sharpe per strategy'). It implicitly excludes backtests ('no backtests'), but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use, so a slight gap remains.

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