Get Builders Leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('Get') and the ranking basis ('by volume'), but omits important details like sort direction (descending/ascending), whether date filters affect results, pagination behavior, or any rate limiting. This is thin coverage for a tool with no structured safety context.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity—it's not verbose but is under-specified. While it earns its place as a clear statement of purpose, it leaves significant gaps that more sentences could address without becoming wordy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description only states 'Get builder rankings by volume.' It doesn't specify the return structure, whether rankings are ordered by volume descending, how date boundaries work, or how pagination behaves. Given the existence of closely related sibling tools, this description is incomplete and leaves an agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 has 4 parameters (limit, offset, start_date, end_date) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter—it doesn't explain what 'by volume' means for the date parameters or how limit/offset affect results. Since the schema provides only names and basic constraints, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics essentially unexplained.

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 'Get builder rankings by volume' clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('builder rankings'), and includes the ranking criterion ('by volume'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_builders_volume, which focuses on volume rather than rankings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_builders_volume or get_user_volume. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over similar options.

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