get_top_rated_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only states the purpose but does not disclose whether this is a read operation, any side effects, or how results are ordered. The example provides minimal behavioral hint.

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 extremely concise with one line and an example. It avoids unnecessary words, but could include a brief note on the output without harming conciseness.

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?

Given there is an output schema (assumed to describe return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on ranking criteria (e.g., what makes a stock 'top rated') and whether results are live or cached.

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 explain the parameter. It only indirectly shows usage via example but does not define what 'page_size' means or its expected range/format beyond the default.

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 action ('get') and resource ('high-rated stocks across the entire market'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_smart_score_rank' which focuses on a specific score type, whereas this is about overall top-rated stocks.

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 such as 'get_smart_score_rank' or 'get_stock_search'. No prerequisites or contexts are provided.

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