HIP-4 Top Traders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the access tier required and enumerating the returned fields, though it does not cover pagination or sorting details.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists return fields and the access requirement.

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 read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields and required access tier. It does not define the exact ranking metric behind 'recent outcome activity' or specify ordering, but this is a minor gap given the simple parameter set and annotations.

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%, so all three parameters (days, limit, useToonFormat) are already documented with defaults and bounds in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Rank top HIP-4 outcome traders') and specifies the output fields, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like hip4_most_active or pulse_leaderboard, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 clearly states the tool ranks traders by recent outcome activity, which gives an agent the context needed to select it. It also mentions the access requirement ('Starter-or-higher key'), but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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