get_most_active_stocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'screens the market' but doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, latency, or rate limits. For a market data tool, this omission is significant, as agents need to understand reliability and constraints to use it appropriately.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, scope) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would improve agent effectiveness.

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 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only hints at the 'by' parameter options ('volume or trade count') without providing additional context or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 purpose: 'Screens the market for most active stocks by volume or trade count.' It specifies the verb ('screens'), resource ('most active stocks'), and criteria ('by volume or trade count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_movers', which might serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_market_movers' or clarify specific use cases, such as real-time analysis or daily summaries. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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