avanza_market_movers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only names the resource and filters. It does not disclose pagination, default limit, maximum limit, what the response payload is, whether movers are sorted by percent change or absolute change, or whether the endpoint can fail when no market data is available. This is too thin for a data-fetching tool with five optional parameters.

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?

One compact sentence with the core resource up front and the optional filters appended. No filler, no repetition of schema types, and every phrase adds some value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only five parameters.

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?

For a straightforward market-movers fetch with no required parameters, this is close to adequate: the agent knows what it returns and what knobs exist. However, it lacks any statement about default pagination or output fields, and it doesn't explain the semantics of each filter (especially 'turnover'). No output schema exists, so the description has more responsibility than it meets.

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 compensate for all five parameters. It names country/market/turnover filters, which maps to countryCodes, marketPlaces, and min_total_value_traded, and the phrase 'gainers/losers' implies limit and min_price are used for filtering the list. That said, the mapping is partial: 'turnover' is not self-explanatory as min_total_value_traded, and 'market' may be ambiguous with marketPlaces vs countryCodes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('Avanza market movers (gainers/losers)'), which distinguishes it from most sibling tools focused on orders, positions, or pricing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other market-data siblings like avanza_index_constituents or avanza_search_stock, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 context: use it when you need gainers/losers in a market, and the optional filters signal how to narrow results. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., avanza_index_constituents, tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot, or avanza_live_snapshot) and no exclusions.

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