get_movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives a warning about data sufficiency but does not describe whether the operation is read-only, how results are sorted, whether both gainers and losers are included, or how league/min_sample values affect the behavior. This is only a minimal starting point.

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 two sentences with zero filler: the purpose comes first, followed by a single necessary caveat. Every word contributes, and no essential information is buried in a longer block.

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 four parameters fully undocumented in the schema and no annotations, this description does not give an agent enough context to correctly set `league`, `limit`, or `min_samples`. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the input side is insufficiently covered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It only touches `days` through the phrase 'over the window' and the condition `days + 1` days, while `limit`, `league`, and `min_samples` receive no explanation at all. This does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Items with the largest percentage price moves over a window', which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (movers) with a scope. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_price_history or find_listings, so it misses the top score.

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 only guidance is a data requirement: 'Needs at least `days + 1` days of collected history to be meaningful.' This provides a condition to use, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_price_history or find_listings, leaving usage partially implied.

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