forex_gainers

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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action and resource without mentioning any details like output format, ordering, limits, or default time period. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not contradictory; however, it lacks any behavioral nuance beyond the purpose.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the core function with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, and the information is front-loaded with 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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not clarify what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage change over a specific period) or how many results are returned. This is a minor gap, but given the presence of similar tools like 'forex_losers' and 'forex_prices', an agent might benefit from a bit more context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is complete (100% coverage with no properties). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not lack any parameter-related information.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top forex gainers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'forex_losers', 'forex_tickers', and 'forex_quote'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns without additional context.

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 the usage context (when you want top gainers) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or use alternatives. Since siblings are numerous and similar, explicit guidance would help, but the purpose alone is fairly clear. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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