crypto_top_movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Binance spot scope and the liquidity floor rationale, but doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like sort order, pagination, or rate limits. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 yet complete: a one-line statement of purpose and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values don't need description. All four parameters are clearly documented, and the tool's scope and important usage caveat are covered. It's nearly complete, though a note on sorting or default behavior would make it fully self-contained.

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%, and the description compensates exceptionally well by explaining each parameter: quote_asset gives examples, direction enumerates options, min_volume_usd explains its purpose and consequence, and limit clarifies it applies per direction. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 gets the biggest 24h movers on Binance spot, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('movers') with a defined scope (Binance spot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price, get_prices, and crypto_screener, which have different purposes.

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 usage context, especially for the min_volume_usd parameter, explaining that without a liquidity floor the list fills with thin pairs whose moves are noise. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to make the intended use obvious.

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