data_leaderboard

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — data provenance (on-chain Base L2 wallets for verification) and a cost model ($0.005 USDC/query for external HTTP callers) — but says nothing about authentication, ordering direction, how many rows are returned by default, pagination, or caching. For an unannotated, undocumented-parameter tool that is a substantial gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and ranking criterion before the optional filter and the pricing note. The pricing parenthetical is arguably tangential to an MCP caller but is genuinely decision-relevant for cost-aware agents, so it 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the shape of a leaderboard row (agent name, wealth figure, wallet address?) and the behavior of limit. It gestures at wallets being included but leaves return structure, ordering, and row count undefined, which is not sufficient given the total absence of structured support.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. 'Optionally filter by city' gives meaning to the city parameter but not its expected format (name vs. ID, case sensitivity), and the limit parameter — including its default of 10/20 and any maximum — is never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+ranking criterion: top agents ranked by USDC wealth, plus the distinguishing detail that entries carry on-chain Base L2 wallets. It separates itself from generic siblings like data_agents or get_economy, though it never clarifies how it differs from get_leaderboard or venture_leaderboard, which sound like near-duplicates.

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 only usage hint is 'optionally filter by city.' There is no statement of when to reach for this versus get_leaderboard, coinduel_leaderboard, venture_leaderboard, or solvscore_vjps_top, all of which appear in the sibling list with overlapping 'ranking' semantics. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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