get_top_operators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output as a leaderboard with 'confirmed scam count' and source (SolSentry), but does not disclose data freshness, pagination, or if the result is real-time. The behavioral traits are adequately but not richly described.

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, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and resource, the second adds context. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only leaderboard tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (ranked operators), the criterion (scam count), and the source (SolSentry). No additional completeness needed.

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 100% for the sole parameter 'limit', so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what is in the schema (e.g., default value or typical use).

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 clearly states 'Get the top Solana rug pull operators ranked by confirmed scam count', specifying both the verb ('Get') and the resource (top operators ranked by scam count). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_operator' (individual check) and 'get_network_stats' (network-level stats).

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 implies usage for obtaining a leaderboard of serial deployers, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when needing a single operator check, use check_operator). No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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