ShowMRR leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: money is returned in cents plus currency, and unverified figures carry a flag that must never be presented as verified revenue — a real presentation constraint.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the optional filter, then the data-format and verification caveats. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (cents plus currency, per-row verification flag). Limit/pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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%, with limit range and category slug pattern already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the category filter is optional and points to mrr_stats, adding little beyond the structured field text.

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 verb and resource ('List startups on the ShowMRR public leaderboard ranked by monthly recurring revenue'), plus the data source (showmrr.com). An agent can distinguish this from mrr_search, mrr_stats, and mrr_startup without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to mrr_stats to discover categories before filtering, and notes the category filter is optional. It does not state when to prefer this over mrr_search (e.g., free-text search vs. ranked listing), leaving one sibling relationship implied.

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