stocks_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 says 'Get top stock gainers' without explaining the output format, sorting criteria, market scope, or whether data is real-time. This is a read-only operation, but the lack of any detail leaves behavior largely opaque.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a parameter-less tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't say what the response looks like (e.g., array of tickers with prices, percentage changes) or whether any filters apply. An agent calling this tool doesn't know what to expect.

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, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to explain any inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'top stock gainers', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_gainers and stocks_losers at a basic level. However, it doesn't specify what 'top' means (e.g., percentage change, volume) or how many results are returned, so it's clear but not fully precise.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action without noting that it applies specifically to stocks (not ETFs or crypto) or mentioning siblings like stocks_losers for the opposite case. Usage is only implied by the tool name, not stated in the description.

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