Get HoodGrow market movers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds significant beyond-annotation context: pricing ($0.05 via x402, free with API key), refresh intervals (15 minutes), snapshot semantics (observedAt for age), and priceSource for feed resolution vs fallback. It also clarifies potential empty lists, enhancing behavioral transparency.

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 the core purpose and follows with pricing, data source, and refresh details. It is slightly redundant (mentions 15-minute snapshot twice) and a few details could be tightened, but each sentence carries relevant information and overall structure is logical.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return semantics: lists of movers, observedAt, priceSource, and empty-list behavior. It also explains data provenance and pricing, making it complete for a read-only market data tool. Sibling tools and annotations provide additional context, filling any remaining gaps.

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 100% schema coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, the schema already documents range and default. The description recaps this but adds that limit caps each list individually (gainers, losers, volume, liquidity), which is a minor semantic enhancement. No new format details are provided, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: fetching market movers across the HoodGrow/Robinhood Chain stock-token catalog, including top gainers/losers, swap volume, and Uniswap V3 liquidity. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_catalog (listing) and get_ohlc (price history) by focusing on market movement metrics.

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 market movers but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools or mention exclusions. It provides context (e.g., on-chain Chainlink feeds, refresh interval) but no direct comparison with alternatives like get_slippage or get_defi, which limits guidance.

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