social_get_influencers

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

The description claims ranking by 'engagement and followers', but the schema's default sort is 'influence_score', which is potentially misleading. No annotations exist to clarify safety or side effects, and the description provides no additional behavioral context like pagination or return format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the core purpose.

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 should provide some insight into the returned data structure. It only states 'top crypto influencers ranked by engagement and followers' without specifying what fields each influencer includes (e.g., name, handle, follower count, engagement rate). An agent would lack sufficient context to use the result effectively.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not compensate. However, the phrase 'ranked by engagement and followers' oversimplifies the sort options (which also include influence_score), adding slight ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'top crypto influencers', with specific ranking criteria (engagement and followers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like social_get_influencer (singular) and social_get_influencer_posts by indicating a ranked list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as social_get_influencer for single-influencer lookups. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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