Most active

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states a noun phrase. It does not mention whether the data is real-time or delayed, whether it is sorted by volume/percentage, or whether the result is a list. Key behavioral aspects such as pagination or data freshness are omitted.

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 short phrase, but it is under-specification rather than concise completeness. It provides no actionable information beyond what the title and name already imply. A concise, useful description should include the action and key context (e.g., list, sorted, live).

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 tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several siblings, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the 'tab' parameter affects results, or how this differs from quote/search tools. The description leaves the agent without enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters. The parameter descriptions themselves are minimal—'Leaderboard' for tab and 'How many rows' for rows—but the enum values (ACTIVE, GAINERS, LOSERS) are somewhat self-explanatory. The description does not clarify what each tab value returns or how 'most active' is defined.

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 'Most active securities across the market' identifies the resource (securities) and scope (market), but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' to clarify the action. It is vague about whether this returns a list, a snapshot, or a specific security, and does not differentiate from siblings like godel_quote or godel_live_quote.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., godel_quote for individual securities, godel_search for finding securities). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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