alt_top_movers

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 add meaningful behavioral context: it states the data is credential-free public data from Alt's GraphQL API, and discloses that category is not strictly validated against alt-categories' list. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only public endpoint it covers the main safety and source concerns.

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 well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, then mode details, then caveats and data source. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentence ('biggest card-market price movers' vs 'biggest price-index movers'), but overall every sentence contributes useful information without excessive length.

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 tool with three optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the key usage modes, the category-validation caveat, and the data provenance. It lacks explicit pagination and rate-limit details, but the schema covers limits and the description is sufficient for a caller to select correct parameters.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema. It clarifies that the trend index's category set is broader than alt-categories' list, gives MULTI-SPORT_CARDS as an example, and reinforces how subject changes the meaning of category. This extra nuance helps an agent pass parameters correctly.

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 ('Get Alt's biggest card-market price movers') and clearly distinguishes the two modes: a cross-subject leaderboard and a single subject's category breakdown. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the leaderboard/subject distinction and 'price-index movers' scope separate it from nearby alt_* tools.

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 explains how to choose between its two modes (set subject or not) and notes that category is ignored when subject is set. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools like alt_market_trends or alt_card_search, and no alternative-selection rules. The usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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