Get a Bopster leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-style return operation with pagination and a time window, but it omits permissions, data visibility, ranking basis, and rate/limit behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The core purpose, participant categories, time scope, and pagination are all packed efficiently.

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?

For a simple read tool with a fully described four-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, participant types, time window, and pagination sufficiently to invoke it correctly. Return fields are not detailed, but the absence of an output schema makes that a relatively minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents page, type, limit, and period in detail. The description restates participant categories, time period, and pagination but adds no meaningful syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Return'), resource ('ranked leaderboard of Bopster participants'), and scope (creator/predictor/oracle leaderboards over a time period). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which appear to offer leaderboard 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 makes the use case clear: retrieve rankings for a given participant type and time window. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but no sibling tool offers a comparable leaderboard function.

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