leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only ranking operation and lists return fields. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or side effects, which would be beneficial for a complete transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, usage context, and a clear args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields adequately. It covers parameter details and implies differentiation from siblings. However, it lacks information on error handling, empty results, or performance limits, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the parameter explanations in the description are critical. The description provides clear semantics for each parameter: sort options, category examples, filter choices, and limit range. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool ranks Polymarket whales by performance metrics, with examples of sorting keys and filtering by category. It distinguishes from siblings such as 'wallet_overview' (individual wallet) or 'markets' (market 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 explains when to use the tool (find top traders) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'wallet_overview' or 'whale_alerts' are not mentioned, leaving some inference needed.

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