get_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read (get) and specifies the ranking criterion (realized PnL from closed positions). However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like caching, access requirements, or response size limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and ranking logic. No unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the leaderboard contains (wallets ranked by realized PnL). However, it lacks detail on the exact output fields (e.g., wallet address, PnL value) and any pagination. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics since there are none, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves the leaderboard, specifying it ranks wallets by realized trading PnL from closed positions. This provides a specific verb (get) and resource (leaderboard) with precise criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_holdings or get_positions.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. However, given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the usage is implicitly clear. A higher score would require mentioning scenarios where this tool is preferable over siblings.

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