top_gainers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses bollinger band analysis and imposes a max limit of 50, which adds value beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or data freshness, though 'return' implies a safe read operation.

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: a single overview sentence followed by a clean, organized Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and methodology sufficiently. It lacks only niche details like exact data source or update frequency, which are not critical for correct invocation.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: exchange lists allowed crypto and stock exchanges, timeframe lists all allowed timeframes, and limit specifies max rows. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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: 'Return top gainers for an exchange and timeframe using bollinger band analysis.' It identifies a specific verb (Return), resource (top gainers), and method (bollinger band analysis), which also differentiates it from siblings like top_losers and bollinger_scan.

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 context about what the tool does and the parameters (exchange, timeframe, limit), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough, but exclusions or alternative scenarios are not mentioned.

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