leaderboard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description's listing/ranking behavior. The description adds details beyond annotations, such as case-insensitive symbol matching, sorting behavior, and the fields returned, enhancing 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 well-structured with a clear heading, examples, sorting logic, and return fields. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, earning a high score for conciseness given the complexity.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still lists key fields. It covers use cases, sorting, filtering, and symbol handling, making it complete for the tool's 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the `sort` enum, `symbol` usage with examples, and mentions `limit`, `family`, `offset`, `status`, `visibility` implicitly. However, it does not provide exhaustive parameter-level details for all 7 params, so slightly less than perfect.

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 provides a leaderboard of published, backtested strategies ranked by various metrics. It gives concrete example queries and explicitly differentiates from sibling `strategy` for full dossier access.

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 tells when to use it (e.g., 'what are the best strategies?') and how to narrow by symbol or sort. It also advises that for a single strategy's full details, use the sibling `strategy` tool, providing explicit alternatives.

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