get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the $0.001 USDC cost, the Base L2 payee address, and the two accepted payment proofs (tx_hash in request or x402 header), which is valuable. But it omits what happens on missing/insufficient payment, whether cost is per-call, any rate limits, and how many results a single payment returns — material gaps for a paid, mutating-in-effect call.

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 paid price is front-loaded in brackets, followed by purpose, return contents, and payment mechanics — a sensible order with little filler. The payment block is necessarily verbose but every line conveys a required action.

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 paid, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers cost, payment route, filterable dimension, and returned fields ('balance, reputation, job count, city'), which is most of what an agent needs. The main hole is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and any failure behavior when payment is absent.

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 for both parameters. It explains 'city' as an optional filter, but 'limit' (default 10) is never mentioned — no default, maximum, or effect on results is stated. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Get the top AgentWorld agents ranked by USDC balance') plus the return contents, which is enough to separate it from sibling leaderboards like venture_leaderboard or coinduel_leaderboard by entity and ranking metric. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Optionally filter by city' and 'Includes on-chain wallet addresses for verification' hint at when this is the right tool (leaderboard ranking plus on-chain verification). There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to the many sibling leaderboard/board tools, so an agent must infer selection.

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