coinduel_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the call is free and that the day is interpreted in America/Phoenix, which is real behavioral context. It does not address read-only nature or return shape beyond listing the leaderboard contents, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the single parameter note. Every clause adds information and there is no 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the resource, what data it returns, the default behavior, the date format, and the timezone. Only the absence of sibling differentiation and return-shape detail keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'string' with default '', so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully: the parameter is optional, uses YYYY-MM-DD format, defaults to today, and is evaluated in America/Phoenix — details that cannot be recovered from the schema.

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 names a specific resource (Coin Duel leaderboard) and states what it contains (pot size and entrant count), which is clearer than a bare 'get leaderboard'. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling leaderboard tools (get_leaderboard, data_leaderboard, venture_leaderboard), leaving the agent to infer the Coin Duel scope on its own.

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 word 'Today's' plus 'Optional day' implies the default is the current day and that a specific date can be supplied, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling leaderboard tools.

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