futures_losers

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-liner gives no information about output format, sorting order, data fields returned, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is a substantial gap for a tool that returns data, leaving the agent without expectations about the response.

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, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, but it is so minimal that it borders on being under-specified rather than concisely effective. It earns points for lack of verbosity but loses points because brevity comes at the cost of critical context.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'top losers' means (e.g., by percentage decline), what the returned data looks like, or any sorting/limit behavior. While sibling tools likely follow a pattern, the agent has no explicit information to understand the result set, making this inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing regarding parameters; the description would only need to add context about implicit constraints (e.g., time range) but nothing is offered, so the score stays at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top futures losers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like futures_gainers (opposite) and other asset-class losers (etf_losers, stocks_losers, etc.). However, it does not specify what qualifies as 'top' (e.g., by percentage decline, absolute dollar change), leaving a minor ambiguity about the selection criterion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as futures_gainers or futures_list_exchange. It does not mention any condition or context that would make this tool the preferred choice, nor does it exclude any scenarios. There is no discussion of alternatives or when not to use it.

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