get_top_gainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation and even indicates a sorting behavior (by highest % increase). However, it doesn't disclose other potentially relevant traits like whether the data is real-time, whether it reflects intraday or end-of-day, or what fields each stock entry contains. For a simple read-only tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool returns and the criterion for 'top'. No wasted words, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and the ranking criterion. However, it doesn't specify the structure of the returned items (e.g., whether it includes price, change amount, etc.), which could be considered a minor gap. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation: the 'limit' parameter is fully described with a default value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of top performing stocks') with a clear qualifier ('highest % increase'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_top_losers' and other market-related tools.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool when you need top-performing stocks ranked by percentage increase. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the function is so narrowly scoped that an agent can easily infer when it applies compared to siblings like 'get_market_summary' or 'scan_market'.

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