futures_top_movers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: returns a list ranked by % change with OHLCV data, and the volume_min filter defaults to 10 to exclude illiquid contracts. No contradictions.

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 structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, concise yet thorough. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff. Ideal length for an agent to quickly parse.

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 no output schema, the description explains return format (list ranked by % change with OHLCV data). Parameters are fully documented. Annotations cover safety. The tool's role is clear among many siblings. No gaps are evident.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines direction (gainers/losers), exchanges (us/global), limit (max results), and volume_min (minimum volume filter). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema's type 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 the tool returns 'Futures contracts with the biggest percentage moves today,' specifying verb and resource. The parameters further clarify scope (direction, exchanges, filters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like top_gainers/top_losers (likely equities) and futures_market_overview (broader overview).

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 provides parameter guidance (direction, exchanges, volume_min) implying when to use gainers vs losers. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, but the name and description make the use case clear. Few explicit 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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