get_rich_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ranking by balance, current epoch, and pagination support, but omits aspects like authentication needs, response format, or potential rate limits. For a read-only getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the pagination capability. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention what data is included per address (e.g., address, balance, rank) but the presence of an output schema would have reduced that burden. Sibling context is adequate to infer when to use it.

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 description coverage is 100% for both page and pageSize, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'Supports pagination' generically, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Qubic rich list'), and clearly qualifies the resource as 'top addresses ranked by balance for the current epoch.' This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_balance (single address) and get_epoch_computors (different 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?

The description implies usage context (rich list for current epoch) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. The pagination note is a feature, not usage guidance. It is clear but not fully explicit.

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