get_top_movers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the what and scope but lacks context on behavioral aspects like performance or data sources. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail on return values or usage constraints would improve completeness for this data retrieval tool.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints on the limit value or how gainers/losers are ranked. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 purpose: 'Get top gaining and losing cryptocurrencies in the last 24h from the top 100 by market cap.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('cryptocurrencies'), timeframe ('last 24h'), and scope ('top 100 by market cap'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_global_crypto_market' or 'get_crypto_price', which could provide overlapping market data.

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 context by specifying 'top gaining and losing' and 'last 24h', suggesting it's for tracking short-term market movements. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_global_crypto_market' for broader metrics or 'get_crypto_price' for specific assets. The usage is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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