get_leaderboard

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses rating aggregation, ranking logic, and return fields. However, it lacks details on data freshness or update frequency, which would enhance transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured into sections (intro, BEHAVIOR, USAGE GUIDELINES, EXAMPLE QUERIES). Every sentence is informative and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema and 2 optional parameters, the description fully explains return fields, behavior, and interconnections with sibling tools. It provides complete guidance for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying usage context (e.g., use list_categories for slug, default values) and linking to sibling tools, but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond schema.

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 gets top-rated tools by category with aggregated scores, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_category (all vs top N) and compare_tools (comparison vs ranking).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (user asks for best/top-rated) and when-not-to-use (use list_category for all tools). Suggests prior use of list_categories and combination with get_pricing. Includes example queries for clarity.

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