top_earners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: returns a top-10 list ordered by reflections paid. It also implies read-only behavior ('Get', 'Shows'). For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, this is adequate disclosure, though it doesn't mention potential caveats like data freshness or authentication.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second clarifies the significance ('passive income'). No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward listing task, the description fully captures what the tool returns and how it's ranked. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on 'top earners.' The lack of an output schema is not an issue because the description explicitly states the scope (top 10) and the metric.

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. The baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema doesn't show. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because 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's function: 'Get the top 10 DumbMoney tokens ranked by total reflections paid to holders.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('top 10 DumbMoney tokens'), and specifies the ranking criterion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tokens or get_token.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to see which tokens have generated the most passive income for holders. Although it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is strong enough that an agent would know to use this tool for top-earner ranking, and it's unlikely to be confused with other siblings.

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