top_gainers

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the return format (list[dict] or structured error envelope) and the use of Bollinger Bands, though it omits rate limits or auth specifics.

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 front-loaded with purpose and structured into Args and Returns sections. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though slightly more brevity could be possible.

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 the tool has an output schema and context signals show few parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and error handling completely. Annotations provide safety context, making it fully actionable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: exchange (lists valid values), timeframe (lists valid values), limit (max 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Return top gainers for an exchange and timeframe using Bollinger Band analysis', specifying a verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from siblings like 'top_losers' and 'bollinger_scan' by targeting gainers specifically.

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 implies usage for screening top gainers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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