Top movers: OI spikes, extreme funding, widest basis, highest stress

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds that the tool returns four top-10 lists in one call, which is a key behavioral aspect not covered by annotations. This helps the agent set expectations about output structure without needing an output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with usage trigger, and a clear list of content categories. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers return structure (four top-10 lists) and the domains it spans. It could specify more detail (e.g., exact field names or time period) but is adequate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters needing explanation. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4.

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's purpose: it returns top movers in crypto derivatives across four dimensions (OI spikes, extreme funding, widest basis, highest stress). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_funding_heatmap or get_pressure_scores by aggregating multiple top-10 lists into a single call.

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 opening phrase 'Call this when the user asks...' explicitly lists the exact query types for which this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context makes it clear this is the go-to tool for broad 'what is moving' questions.

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