stocks_losers

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 behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the name with a verb, offering no information about return format, pagination, ordering, number of results, time period, or any potential side effects. For a list-retrieval tool, even basic details like whether it is read-only are absent. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotation support.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is so terse that it borders on a restatement of the tool name, which slightly reduces its value. Still, for a simple tool with no parameters, the length is appropriate.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the agent can expect. 'Top stock losers' does not clarify what 'top' means (e.g., largest percentage loss over a day, week, etc.), how many results are returned, the ordering, or any filters. While the tool is likely straightforward, ambiguous terms could lead to incorrect assumptions. More detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, when a tool has 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The description is adequate in this dimension since no parameter information is required.

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 stock losers' clearly states a verb and a resource, making it obvious that the tool returns the worst-performing stocks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_gainers by the 'losers' term, and the asset class 'stocks' is explicit. However, it is minimal and could benefit from specifying what 'top' means (e.g., by percentage decline or absolute change), 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, such as comparing with stocks_gainers or other asset-class loser tools (e.g., etf_losers). An agent is left without explicit direction on which tool to select for a given task, though the name and description imply a straightforward listing use case.

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