get_snapshot_direction

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'gainers or losers', which hints at directional data retrieval, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'gainers or losers' entails (e.g., percentage thresholds, time frames). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth, warranting a baseline score.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get gainers or losers for a market.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as is, it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), annotations (readOnlyHint=true), and low complexity, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address parameter meanings or usage context, making it adequate for simple queries but insufficient for fully informed tool selection without external references.

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%, meaning parameters like 'market_type', 'direction', 'include_otc', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the output. For example, it does not clarify what 'direction' represents (e.g., 'gainers' vs. 'losers') or what 'market_type' entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 'Get gainers or losers for a market' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'gainers or losers for a market', which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in comparison to alternatives. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name 'get_snapshot_direction'.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_ticker'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into the broader set. Usage is implied only by the description's content, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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