Returns top-performing hedge fund managers ranked by success rate and returns.
Args:
num: Number of managers to return (default 10, max 100 — the upstream
returns 100 for anything higher)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_top_hedge_fund_managersOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the 'num' parameter is capped at 100, and the upstream returns 100 for anything higher. It also clarifies the ranking criteria, which helps set expectations about output ordering.
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 compact and well-organized: one sentence stating the tool's purpose and ranking criteria, followed by a short Args section documenting the only parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 single-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers what the tool returns, how results are ranked, and the parameter's default and limits. Output schema is absent, but the return values are reasonably inferable and not needed to invoke the tool.
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%, so the description must carry the meaning for the 'num' parameter. It does so excellently by explaining that num is 'Number of managers to return' and documenting the default, maximum, and the upstream clamping behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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: 'Returns top-performing hedge fund managers ranked by success rate and returns.' This clearly distinguishes it from related hedge fund tools like get_hedge_fund_holdings and get_hedge_fund_activity, which focus on holdings and activity rather than manager 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a ranked list of top hedge fund managers based on success rate and returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.