Get points leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (results are trimmed to `limit` wallets), but says nothing about ordering (points descending?), scope (global vs. per-project), freshness, auth requirements, or whether results are paginated.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the one qualifier that matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-param read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch what a leaderboard entry contains (wallet address plus points/rank). That omission is the main gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single param is documented only as an integer with a default and max. The phrase 'trimmed to `limit` wallets' adds real meaning by clarifying the unit of the limit (wallets, not entries or pages), which the schema does not say.

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 (Fetch) and resource (points leaderboard) and even names the backing endpoint (/api/points). No sibling tool overlaps this resource, so differentiation is implicitly satisfied, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or auth notes, and no mention of alternatives. The only implied usage is 'call this to get the leaderboard', which the name already conveys.

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