analysts_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It discloses the 5-resolved-signal minimum, the free 7-day window, the ~10 minute cache, the null-result edge case, and the exact units for winRate and avgReturn. It also maps analyst IDs to names and chains, leaving little hidden behavior.

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 dense and front-loads the core result, then adds constraints, use case, null behavior, mappings, units, and cache. It is slightly redundant, as the opening phrase mentioning 'min 5 resolved trades required' repeats the later 'at least 5 resolved signals,' but every other sentence contributes unique useful detail.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete: it specifies the exact selection rule, the edge-case return value, field semantics, analyst ID mapping, and caching behavior. An agent can invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly without consulting any external documentation.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs; baseline 4 applies. It still adds useful output semantics such as analyst ID mapping and field units, but those are output-oriented rather than parameter-oriented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the highest win-rate analyst right now' and defines the exact selection criterion (at least 5 resolved signals) and payload (win rate, avg return, last 3 signals). This clearly separates it from siblings like analysts and analysts_signals by emphasizing the single top result rather than a list.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use: 'surface the best-performing signal source without iterating over all 10 analysts.' It identifies the alternative (iterating over all analysts) and the value of this shortcut, though it does not provide hard exclusion conditions for when a caller should prefer the full list.

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