futures_gainers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get top futures gainers' without explaining what constitutes 'top', whether there is a default limit, the sort order, or the return format. An agent cannot infer time horizon (daily, weekly) or any underlying data source. This is a minimal description that leaves key behavioral traits undefined.

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: 'Get top futures gainers'. It is extremely concise with no filler or redundancy. The action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriate and earns a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. It tells the agent what the tool does but omits details that would help in downstream processing, such as the structure of the returned data or any configurable options. Since the tool has no inputs and a clear purpose, the description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of any indication about the response format or data scope (e.g., which futures markets are included) leaves some ambiguity.

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 correctly reflects that with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description needs to add nothing in this dimension. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies because schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 'Get top futures gainers' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (top futures gainers), and the tool name further specifies the asset class. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar names like 'crypto_gainers' or 'etf_gainers' beyond the explicit 'futures' identifier, which is already in the name. No additional context is provided about what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage, volume), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is obvious from the name that it is for futures, the description does not mention any exclusion contexts (e.g., 'use for daily gainers') or compare with future-specific tools like 'futures_losers' or 'futures_quote'. The absence of parameters means the only decision is asset class, which is self-evident, so the lack of explicit guidance is not critical but still a gap.

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