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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful disclosure: it specifies the market-cap threshold, stablecoin exclusion, the 7/30-day context, and the market cap field, and explicitly disclaims that a move is a rating. It stops short of describing output shape or ordering, so it is not a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first packs the resource, criteria, and returned context, while the second eliminates a likely misinterpretation about ratings. The wording is efficient and 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?

For a simple read-oriented tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it communicates selection criteria, exclusions, and the fields returned. The only material gap is the lack of explicit guidance about how count affects results and how the gainer/loser output is organized.

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 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter, count, leaving its effect on the result implicit. The parameter name and constraints make it inferable, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies a specific resource (today's largest 24-hour gainers/losers), defines the universe (top 1,000 coins by market cap), applies an exclusion (stablecoins), and clarifies that movers are price facts, not ratings. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like coingraph_evaluate or get_survival_rating.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need today's top movers among large-cap coins. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings such as get_comebacks, get_market_context, or coingraph_compare, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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