anomaly_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the ranking is based on today's Isolation-Forest score, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, how frequently the data updates, or what the output format is. Without annotations, this lack of detail leaves the agent without important safety and usage information.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the absence of an output schema means the description should at least hint at the output structure. It mentions 'most-anomalous countries ranked,' but does not specify whether it returns a list of country names, scores, ranks, or other fields. This incompleteness hinders an agent from properly using the tool's result.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter detail. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately omits any parameter information since none exist.

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 that the tool ranks today's most-anomalous countries using an Isolation-Forest score. This specific verb and resource differentiate it from sibling tools that use other algorithms (e.g., anomaly_dbscan, anomaly_score) or other data sources (e.g., forecast tools).

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful as a triage feed — a country trending up here but flat on the forecast warrants attention.' It contrasts with forecast tools, giving the agent a decision rule. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternative anomaly tools or when not to use this one.

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