Entity Leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: deduplication across sub-accounts, exclusion of system/protocol accounts, and the exact row fields returned. It also surfaces the Pro tier access requirement.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the ranking criterion, then explains the entity-level value, exclusions, output columns, and access requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 leaderboard tool with fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states ranking metric, aggregation scope, exclusions, output fields, and tier restriction. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting the tool is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit, offset, and useToonFormat. The description does not need to add parameter meaning and does not contradict any schema details. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Top entities (owners, NOT wallets) ranked by combined gross open entry notional across all their sub-accounts.' It clearly distinguishes entity-level aggregation from wallet-level leaderboards and defines what each row contains.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the deduplicated entity view that a wallet leaderboard cannot provide, with system/protocol accounts excluded. It notes the Pro tier requirement. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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