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 so well. It discloses that data is recomputed on the intraday board, that a live awareness block is included with sector money flows and coiled setups, and that each call costs $0.01 USDC via x402. It also implies a wallet requirement through the 'No wallet?' alternative.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core result and freshness, the free alternative, and the extra payload plus cost. The key differentiator is front-loaded and there is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how fresh it is, what extra data the live version carries, how much it costs, and which sibling to use if payment is not available.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed; the input schema already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 operation: returning today's top 10 leadership names per book by opportunity score, computed on the intraday board. It clearly differentiates this live variant from the sibling get_market_leaders by calling out the delayed free version as the same read.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative get_market_leaders and gives the condition for choosing it: 'No wallet? get_market_leaders is the same read, free, one market day delayed.' This tells an agent when to use this tool versus a direct sibling, and the pricing detail clarifies the cost tradeoff.

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