get_gainers_losers

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint:true, with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description labels the operation as 'Get', implying read-only, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, data freshness, or any side effects. Since annotations do not cover safety, the description should compensate, but it provides minimal extra context.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the key selection criteria. It does not describe the exact response shape or result count, but given the simplicity and strong schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. A slightly richer note on return format would elevate it further, but this is a minor gap.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage with simple one-line labels ('Data type filter', 'Expiry type'). The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the datatype parameter selects between OI-based or price-change-based gainers/losers, which directly aligns with the enum values (e.g., PercOIGainers, PercPriceLosers). This goes beyond the bare schema labels, improving parameter 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 'Get top gainers or losers by OI or price change percentage for derivatives' clearly identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('top gainers or losers'), and the distinguishing criteria ('by OI or price change percentage'), which separates it from sibling tools like get_oi_data or get_market_quote that provide raw data rather than ranked lists.

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 when to use the tool (when you need top gainers/losers for derivatives), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools such as get_oi_data or get_oi_buildup could partially overlap, yet no direct comparison or 'use instead' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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