Wallet win-rate leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds the paid cost of about $0.01 and clarifies that only resolved markets are considered. However, it does not say what the response items contain, whether pagination exists, or how edge cases like tie-breakers are handled.

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 three short, dense sentences: cost, purpose, and parameters. Every segment carries useful information and there is no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter leaderboard tool, the description covers cost, scope, time window, and limit, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It could additionally describe the expected output structure, but that is not essential for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema provides types, enums, and ranges, while the description adds the missing defaults: window default to 30d and limit defaults to 50. It also clarifies that the 7d/30d are valid window choices and the limit is within 1-100, which compensates for the absence of 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 that the tool returns top wallets by realized win rate over resolved markets, which is a specific metric and scope. It is plainly differentiated from sibling tools such as wallet_profile or wallets_compare by its leaderboard focus.

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 provides a clear usage context: a paid leaderboard query by realized win rate, with configurable window and limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling list makes the distinctions reasonably apparent.

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