Proven caller leaderboard

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact rank_score formula (95% Wilson lower bound with a worked example), what is graded (called before the run vs momentum-riding), and a concrete cost of $0.01 USDC on Base. It omits result-set size, pagination, and data freshness.

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?

Leads with the resource and ordering, then justifies the metric, and closes with cost. The parenthetical worked example (3-of-4 vs 10-of-19) earns its space by making the ranking legible, though the semicolon-chained clauses make it denser than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the returned fields, and it does: early rate, median 1h price move, graded-call count, and an evidence label, plus a note that rules ship in the response. Only entry count and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs; it correctly implies a no-argument leaderboard fetch.

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?

States a specific resource and ordering: "Measured X caller leaderboard for Robinhood Chain, ordered by rank_score." An agent can tell this returns a ranked list of callers, distinct from robinx_caller (singular), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with robinx_leaderboard.

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?

Implies usage through framing ("Measured, not follower counts") but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent must infer that robinx_caller is for one caller's detail and robinx_leaderboard is for something else.

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