Strategy leaderboard with verified live results

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: rankings are based on live closed signals only (no backtests) and are net of fees. This helps the agent interpret results correctly. It doesn't cover pagination or return format, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear usage trigger, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the use case and metrics, the second clarifies the data source and fee treatment. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the specific metrics (win rate, profit factor, drawdown, Sharpe) and states the computation basis. It does not specify the ranking sort order or output structure, but for a parameterless tool this is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage vacuously. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

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 the tool provides a strategy leaderboard with specific performance metrics (win rate, profit factor, drawdown, Sharpe). The verb 'Call this when the user asks which trading strategies are performing best' gives a specific use case, and the focus on strategy performance distinguishes it from sibling tools like market indices or liquidations.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call this when the user asks which trading strategies are performing best'), and clarifies what the rankings include. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the trigger condition is clear and actionable.

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