get_top_losers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns a list sorted by percentage decrease, but does not specify the time period (e.g., daily, intraday), data freshness, or other behavioral nuances. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second gives practical use cases. No redundant information, front-loaded with the main function.

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 description covers purpose, output type, and typical use cases, which is sufficient for a simple tool with one optional parameter. However, it omits the timeframe for 'worst performing' (e.g., daily), which could be important for selection.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully documented in the schema with a default and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get list of worst performing stocks') and clarifies the metric (highest % decrease). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_top_gainers by focusing on losers.

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 clear use cases ('identifying oversold opportunities or risk screening') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It offers context but lacks exclusions.

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