get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the output components (top endorsed agents, reputation scores, newest agents, category breakdown), but does not mention read-only nature or any side effects. It is fairly transparent, though lacks details like pagination.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource, followed by a colon and list of components. No redundant 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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description provides a good overview of what the leaderboard contains. It is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool, though details like sorting order or pagination limits are missing.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline is 4 as per guidelines for 0-parameter tools.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'agent leaderboard' and lists specific components: top endorsed agents, reputation scores, newest agents, and category breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_agents, search_agents, and get_trending by specifying the leaderboard format.

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 use for retrieving the leaderboard but does not explicitly state when to or not to use it versus alternatives. Given several sibling tools for browsing and searching, explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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