leaderboard

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully clarifies the ranking dimensions (P&L, wins, total bets) available for sorting, but fails to disclose default sorting behavior, pagination limits, or the structure of returned agent data.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb, contains zero redundancy, and efficiently conveys both the core function and the available sorting options. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, no nesting), the description is sufficiently complete. It implies the return of ranked agent data, though explicit mention of default values or return structure would improve it further.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding schema abbreviations—mapping 'pnl' to 'P&L' and 'bets' to 'total bets'—and connecting the 'sort' parameter options to the ranking criteria mentioned in the description.

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 ('View') and resource ('top-performing agents'), clearly stating the tool displays a ranked list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'games' or 'arena' that might also list agent 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to query 'leaderboard' vs. 'games' or 'status'), nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions where this view is most appropriate.

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