traders.discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the read-like nature (fetching data) and mentions the auto_watch parameter can modify the watchlist. However, it does not discuss rate limits, pagination details, or other potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise with four short sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with usage guidance, return details, and a direct call to action for the auto_watch parameter.

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, the description provides essential return fields (address, PnL, volume, win rate). It also mentions the ranking metrics. However, it does not clarify the primary sort order or default filtering behavior, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only highlighting auto_watch as a convenience feature. It does not elaborate on how min_volume/min_pnl affect results or the default behavior.

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 fetches top traders from the Polymarket leaderboard, specifying the ranking metrics (PnL, volume, ROI). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like traders.analyze or traders.backtest by emphasizing leaderboard discovery and trader copying.

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 suggests using this tool to find profitable traders worth copying, providing a clear use case. It does not directly compare with alternatives, but the context implies it is for broad discovery rather than individual analysis.

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