futures_top_movers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it is a read operation returning a list of futures with OHLCV data, and details parameter defaults like volume_min filtering illiquid contracts. No contradictions, but could mention any auth requirements.

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?

Very concise: one-line summary, Args list with each parameter on one line, and Returns line. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description explains return type (list with % change and OHLCV) and all parameters with defaults. Missing details like specific return fields or today's data scope, but sufficient for agent use.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear explanations for all parameters: direction (gainers/losers), exchanges (us/global), limit (max results), volume_min (minimum volume filter with default 10). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 it returns 'Futures contracts with the biggest percentage moves today,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (futures top movers). It implicitly distinguishes from stock-focused siblings like top_gainers and top_losers by focusing on futures.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., futures_category_snapshot or futures_market_overview). The description implies usage for top movers but lacks 'when not to use' or explicit comparisons.

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