top_losers

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

The description adds beyond annotations by specifying the return format (list[dict] on success, structured error envelope on failure). Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature, so the additional transparency about error handling is valuable but not exhaustive.

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 reasonably concise with two paragraphs separating high-level purpose and return type details. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning. Minimal wasted words.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no enum hints, the description should compensate but fails to explain parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema helps for return values but incomplete overall.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'exchange and timeframe' but does not describe limit, exchange values, or timeframe formats. Description provides minimal compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 top losers for an exchange and timeframe, and lists supported asset types (crypto and stocks) and specific exchanges. This distinguishes it from siblings like top_gainers.

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 fetching top losers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like top_gainers or other screeners. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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