get_market_gainers

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

With no annotations and no additional behavioral disclosure, the description only states the basic output (top gainers). It does not mention whether the data is real-time or delayed, how many stocks are returned, whether it's US or global markets, or any other behavioral traits. The description carries the full burden and falls short.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks context on return format, timeframe, or market scope. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about specifics such as market days or result limits.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. According to the guidelines, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving stocks with the largest price increases. The phrase 'top gainers' is a well-known market term, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_losers and get_most_active.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, and there is no comparison with related tools such as get_most_active or get_sector_performance. The agent is left without context for selecting this tool over others.

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