Get the top gainers and/or losers on a specific African exchange today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Which movers to return. Defaults to both. | |
| limit | No | Number of movers per category. Defaults to 10. | |
| exchange | Yes | Exchange ID. Options: nigeria, ghana, kenya, south-africa, ivory-coast, tanzania, zambia, egypt, morocco, botswana, mauritius, zimbabwe, uganda |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds the time scope ('today') and the exchange specificity, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or sorting behavior beyond what the schema implies. No contradiction with 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 a single well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and is perfectly sized for a tool with a clear function.
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?
The tool has a simple purpose, full parameter descriptions, and safe annotations. The description adequately communicates the 'when' and 'what' for a filtered-list tool. Although no output schema exists, the return type (list of movers) is clear from the description and param names, so completeness is high.
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%, so all parameters are described (type, limit, exchange) with enums and defaults. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves top gainers and/or losers for a specific African exchange, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ngx_top_gainers (Nigeria-specific) and get_pan_african_movers (multi-exchange) by emphasizing a specific exchange.
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 phrase 'specific African exchange' implies this is for exchange-specific movers as opposed to pan-African movers, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pan_african_movers or get_ngx_top_gainers. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
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.
