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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool uses 'live trade activity' and multiple signal types, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety aspect, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that leads with the verb 'Rank' and then lists the criteria. There is no extraneous text, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the large set of similar sibling tools, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'covered symbols' means, how the ranking is computed, how limit and window affect the results, or what the output looks like. An agent would struggle to disambiguate this from siblings and would not know what to expect in the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with this context.

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%, meaning the parameters (limit and window) have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, so the agent receives no explanation of what 'window' means (e.g., time aggregation period) or how 'limit' affects results. The schema provides defaults and enums, but without any semantic explanation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap. This warrants a score of 2.

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 action (rank) and resource (covered symbols) and lists the criteria (live trade activity, pressure, momentum, acceleration, anomaly signals). This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_activity or get_top_momentum, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are specific, so it earns a 4.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (e.g., get_top_activity, get_top_momentum, find_unusual_activity). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the list of signals. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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