top_100_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool gets top 100 stocks, but fails to disclose traits like data freshness, sorting criteria, or whether it requires authentication. However, given the simplicity, the minimal description partially suffices.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (presumably documenting return fields), the description does not need to explain return values. For a low-complexity tool with no parameters, the description adequately identifies the resource. It lacks information on popular definition or update frequency, but is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which yields a baseline score of 4 per guidelines. No additional parameter information is needed, and the description does not add param semantics, which is acceptable here.

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 verb 'Gets', the resource 'top 100 most popular stocks', and the platform 'Robinhood'. It precisely defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'top_movers' or 'search_stocks_tool'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for its use. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose other tools like 'top_movers' or 'stocks_by_tag'.

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