get_top

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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain how 'top' is determined, whether results are sorted, how many results are returned, or whether the tool aggregates across multiple entities. The absence of such context leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes useful examples of entity types. It could be slightly more compact by omitting the parenthetical list, but the list adds clarity without bloat.

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?

With an output schema present and only three parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not define the ranking criterion behind 'top', which is essential for an agent to interpret results correctly. This is a meaningful gap for a ranking tool, but the overall simplicity and schema coverage keep it at a moderate level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by enumerating the entity types and the sector scope, but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The parameter descriptions are adequate, so no major gaps exist.

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 action and resource: getting top entities (ETFs, mutual funds, companies, growth companies, or performing companies) within a sector. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on ticker info, news, search, and price history. However, it does not explicitly clarify what metric defines 'top', so some ambiguity remains.

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 this tool is for retrieving ranked lists of entities per sector, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker_info or get_price_history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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