Get Most Active Stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the data is for the current trading day, but omits other behavioral traits such as real-time nature, rate limits, handling of market closures, or whether results are sorted. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple read-only query.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and result scope. Every piece of information is relevant and compact.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the number of items, metric (volume), exchange, and time frame. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., fields like symbol, volume, price). Since no output schema exists, a brief mention of return fields would improve completeness. Overall, adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameters. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 retrieves the top 10 most actively traded stocks by volume in the CSE for the current trading day. This specific verb-resource combination ('get most active stocks') and scope ('top 10', 'volume', 'CSE', 'current day') effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_top_gainers' and 'get_top_losers'.

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 when the agent needs the most actively traded stocks by volume for the current day. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings (e.g., gainers vs volume). Given the straightforward nature and zero parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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