google_finance_markets_top

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns normalized top instruments, but does not mention any limitations, pagination behavior, data freshness, or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is essential and there is no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return format, data quality, and how it fits among similar tools.

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 100% with both parameters described ('Google Finance metric id' and 'Page number'). However, the description adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as possible metric IDs or pagination defaults.

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 it returns normalized top instruments for a Google Finance metric, specifying the verb 'returns' and the resource 'top instruments'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'google_finance_markets_movers' by focusing on metric-specific rankings, but lacks detail on what metrics are available.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_finance_markets_movers or google_finance_markets_trending. There are no usage conditions or exclusions provided.

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