get_movers

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not explain what 'movers' includes (up/down, magnitude), how sorting or frequency parameters affect results, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core message, making it highly scannable. While sparse, the structure is exceptionally concise and efficient.

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's three parameters, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to ensure correct invocation. It omits crucial context about the sort parameter (e.g., 'PERCENT_CHANGE_UP' default), frequency meaning, and the exact nature of 'movers' (e.g., top gainers/losers). The description needs to elaborate to be considered 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides only minimal compensation by listing the specific index values ($SPX, $COMPX, $DJI), which maps to the 'index' parameter. However, it fails to explain the 'sort' and 'frequency' parameters, leaving their semantics unclear. The description does not sufficiently bridge the missing schema documentation.

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 primary function: retrieving top movers for specific indices ($SPX, $COMPX, or $DJI). The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'top movers' is specific, and the explicit index list distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_quotes or get_price_history.

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 when top movers are needed for these specific indices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does convey a clear context (top movers by index), but leaves the decision to the agent without comparative direction.

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