Polyrank platform coverage & metric count

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Live' context and lists returned fields but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness guarantees beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence efficiently enumerates returned data, second provides usage directive. 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and simple purpose, the description completely covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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?

There are no parameters (zero params, 100% schema coverage). Description adds no parameter info which is appropriate since none exist. Baseline 4 is justified per guidelines.

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 returns 'Live Polyrank coverage and the canonical skill-metric count', listing specific data points like wallets ranked, trades indexed, markets covered, skill metrics count, and earliest year. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on leaderboards, traders, or market-specific metrics.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this instead of hardcoding "N wallets / N metrics"', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling context implies alternatives exist for other purposes.

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