top_gainers

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns data based on Bollinger Band analysis and describes the return format (list of dicts on success, error envelope on failure). However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, leaving a small gap.

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 concise (about 100 words) and well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. It lists all parameter options, making it easy for an agent to invoke. Minor omission: no details about sorting or whether results are top N by gain.

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 compensates fully by listing all valid exchange names and timeframes, and stating the maximum limit (50). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 returns top gainers using Bollinger Band analysis for a given exchange and timeframe. It distinguishes from siblings like top_losers and bollinger_scan by specifying the exact use case.

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., top_losers, bollinger_scan). The description lists allowed exchanges and timeframes, which aids selection, but lacks 'when not to use' or comparison to similar tools.

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