Top gainers, losers and most actively traded US tickers from the last completed session. Small illiquid names can dominate the gainers list — the volume column is there so you can judge. Movement is not merit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Which list to return. Defaults to all three. | |
| limit | No | Rows per list. Defaults to 10. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context that small illiquid names can dominate gainers and that movement is not merit, which is non-obvious and helps the agent interpret results correctly. It does not contradict annotations.
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 the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and the second adding a valuable caveat. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information.
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-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the data source (US tickers, last session), the types of lists (gainers, losers, most active), and includes an important interpretive caveat about volume and movement. The annotations cover safety, making this fully sufficient.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (list and limit) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool returns 'Top gainers, losers and most actively traded US tickers from the last completed session,' which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (market movers), and scope (US, last session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_industry_returns or get_sector_returns, which focus on sector/industry performance.
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 provides clear context: it is for the last completed session, and it warns that small illiquid names can dominate gainers, advising the volume column for judgment. While it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, the temporal scope and caveat offer practical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
