Token Leaderboard

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to state those. It adds that results are ranked and include PnL, trade count, win rate, and volume, which is useful but is return-shape context rather than behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: action and scope first, then example queries and return fields. 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?

With full schema coverage and simple parameters, the description is largely complete and supplies return fields since no output schema exists. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit time frame or ranking metric, but the examples make correct invocation clear.

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 descriptions for coin, limit, and useToonFormat, including the prefix syntax for builder dex markets. The description reinforces the coin-centric use but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the top traders for a specific coin,' and reinforces intent with example questions. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, but the per-coin scope clearly separates it from general leaderboard 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?

Example questions ('who are the best BTC traders?') make the intended use obvious. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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