get_top_gainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output is a list of objects with specific fields, but does not mention if the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., empty list on holidays). The description is factual but lacks depth on behavioral aspects beyond the basic function.

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 concise, using a clear docstring format with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse. No redundant or extraneous information.

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's simplicity (two parameters with defaults) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is largely complete. It explains parameters, return format, and purpose. However, it could mention the ordering direction (descending) is already clear from the name, but no major gaps. A small addition like 'daily change percent' clarification is fine.

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. It adds meaning: market is 'KOSPI' or 'KOSDAQ' (though schema has enum), and top_n range 1..50, which goes beyond the schema's default-only definition. This provides helpful context for parameter use, though the default values are already clear.

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 N stocks ranked by daily change percent descending. The verb 'Return' and resource 'top N stocks' are specific. Compared to siblings like get_fundamentals or get_stock_quote, this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys what the tool does but does not explicitly specify when to use it (e.g., 'for identifying top gainers') or when to avoid it (e.g., 'use get_stock_quote for individual stock details'). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and description.

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