top_gainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the use of Bollinger Bands but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear docstring format. Minor redundancy in parameter lists could be trimmed.

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 inputs adequately for an agent to decide to call the tool. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed here. However, the algorithm basis is vague, and no context on data recency or sorting is provided.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: valid exchange values, timeframe periods, and the limit meaning 'Number of rows to return (max 50)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'top gainers' with a specific method 'Bollinger Band analysis'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'top_losers' by focusing on gainers, but does not explicitly differentiate from other scanning 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 provides valid parameter values (exchanges, timeframes, limit) which imply usage contexts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bollinger_scan or coin_analysis.

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