venture_leaderboard

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does the most valuable part: it flags the call as '[FREE]' and positions it as the no-payment inspection step before committing money. It implicitly conveys a read-only listing but does not state whether results are paginated, cached, or how fresh the standings are.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the '[FREE]' marker and the resource identity, then the decision-oriented instruction. The field enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing for an agent deciding whether to read it; only minor tightening would improve it.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the returned payload in detail, covering every notable field plus the derived 'target to beat'. An agent knows exactly what it will get and why it would call this before the paid venture tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its space describing the returned row shape, which is the appropriate substitute for an empty input 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?

States a specific resource ('Standings for the Venture business game') and enumerates exactly what a row contains: company, score, city, sector, trading status, house entries, best score and target. That makes it distinguishable from venture_market and venture_house_status by content. It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead when the agent wants only house entries or market data.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition: 'Read this to judge whether the game is worth entering before you pay anything', which frames it as a pre-purchase, zero-cost reconnaissance call. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but the ordering advice relative to paid entry is clear enough to act on.

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