agent_trust_leaderboard

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

The description implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, the description should disclose more behavioral traits such as default sorting, pagination, or authentication requirements. It adds minimal value beyond the action.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that captures the core functionality. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and the description adequately conveys its purpose. However, given no output schema, some information about return fields or format would improve completeness. It is minimally viable.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool retrieves top agents ranked by trust score/reputation. The verb 'Get' and resource 'agents ... ranked by trust score' make purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like agent_get_trust (individual trust) or agent_get_profile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, when would you need the leaderboard vs. individual trust scores? Missing context for filtering by min_level or limit.

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