get_most_active_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but provides only a general screening action and the ranking metric. It does not mention output structure, time frame (per day), or limitations, placing the burden on the schema instead.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key differentiating detail (volume or trade count). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple structure with output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage differentiation from get_market_movers and does not explicitly clarify 'per day' semantics, leaving some context gaps.

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% and documents both 'by' and 'top' clearly. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond restating the 'by' metric, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses the verb 'screens' and clearly identifies the resource (most active stocks) and the ranking criteria (by volume or trade count). It distinguishes from quote/bar retrieval siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with the similar get_market_movers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the overlap with get_market_movers is unaddressed.

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