TradingView-only: futures movers

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does carry some of the burden: it discloses the data source ('TradingView-only') and that results come back in an envelope labelled TRADINGVIEW. It does not say how the ranking/sort is performed, whether results are live vs delayed, or any rate-limit/permission considerations, which are the remaining gaps on a zero-annotation tool.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first line and Args/Returns clearly partitioned. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter list tool, though the Returns line is a minor redundancy given an output schema exists.

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 most important facts (what it returns, valid values for the two enum-like params) are present, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be explained. What's missing is behavioral context the agent would need to choose this over futures_market_overview or futures_watchlist, plus the effect of defaults when movement/exchanges are omitted.

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% and the schema declares no enums, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully supplies the accepted values for movement ('gainers' or 'losers') and exchanges ('us' or 'global'), plus the meaning of limit; only limit's note ('Rows to return') is essentially a restatement of the parameter name.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: futures gainers/losers ranked by percent change, and the '(TradingView-only)' qualifier distinguishes it from a generic screener. It doesn't name a specific sibling (e.g., crypto_top_movers or futures_market_overview) to sharpen the boundary, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the title that this is a ranked futu res list and that futures_market_overview or futures_watchlist are alternatives. Naming one alternative and the condition that selects it would be needed for a higher score.

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