top_losers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (list[dict] on success, error envelope on failure) and mentions 'total upstream failure'. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication, but the read-only nature is implied.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the error handling note is relevant.

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 an output schema exists (context indicates), the description need not detail return fields. It covers supported exchanges, return type, and error behavior. Minor gap: no mention of default parameter values, but those are in the schema.

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, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing possible exchange values (KUCOIN, BINANCE, MEXC, EGX, BIST, NASDAQ) and referencing timeframe, but does not enumerate timeframe options or explain the 'limit' parameter. Partial value added.

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 losers for an exchange and timeframe', listing specific supported exchanges (crypto and stock). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'top_gainers' and market overview tools.

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?

It explicitly mentions supported exchanges and the purpose (top losers), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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