top_losers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns list[dict] on success and a structured error envelope on any failure, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact return type and error envelope specification. Every sentence provides value with no 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?

The tool is a simple 3-parameter screener with an output schema (not shown but referenced). The description covers the main functionality, supported markets, return type, and error handling. It lacks specification of how 'losers' are calculated, but this is likely domain-standard and the output schema handles return details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating supported exchange values (KUCOIN, BINANCE, MEXC, EGX, BIST, NASDAQ), but it does not explain 'limit' or possible 'timeframe' values beyond the default '15m'. This is helpful but incomplete for 3 parameters.

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 top losers for a given exchange and timeframe, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('top losers'). It also lists supported exchanges, distinguishing it from sibling tools like top_gainers.

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 usage (for screening losers) and lists supported exchanges, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. No explicit when/when-not conditions are given.

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