Get Institution Leaderboards

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool returns two leaderboards with deduplication and volume metrics. It does not contradict the annotation and discloses the scope of the 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 description is two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and output, the second provides an alternative. It is front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool returns, that it's market-wide, and the alternative for paginated results.

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 input schema has 100% coverage on the single 'limit' parameter, describing it fully. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics. Hence, baseline score is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it returns two specific leaderboards: 'topByAum' (largest holders by AUM, name-deduped) and 'mostActive' (highest 13F position-change volume). The verb 'get' and resource 'institution leaderboards' are clear, and the distinction from the sibling 'get_institution_top_aum' is provided.

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 notes that no CIK is required, simplifying use, and directs to 'get_institution_top_aum' for a full paginated AUM list, offering clear guidance on when to use an alternative. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context.

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