futures_top_movers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that volume_min filters illiquid contracts and that the return includes OHLCV data ranked by percentage change. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, using concise wording. Every part serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 provides a complete picture for a straightforward data-retrieval tool: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It lacks some advanced context like pagination or edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters: direction (gainers|losers), exchanges (us|global), limit (max results), and volume_min (minimum volume filter default 10, filters illiquid contracts). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default information.

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 the tool returns futures contracts with the biggest percentage moves today, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from non-futures top movers but does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like futures_watchlist or futures_category_snapshot, though the focus on top percentage movers is unique.

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 versus alternatives such as futures_market_overview or top_gainers. It does not state exclusions or provide context for choosing this over other futures or market-scanning tools, so usage context is left entirely implicit.

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