top_losers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions supported exchanges, but does not explain the meaning of 'top losers' (e.g., by percentage decline), the timeframe format, default behavior, or any other operational details. This is insufficient without annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple data retrieval tool with an output schema and all-optional parameters, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps in timeframe format and limit semantics, and lacks usage guidance. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'exchange' by naming allowed values, and for 'timeframe' by naming it, but it does not explain the timeframe format or the 'limit' parameter at all. This partial compensation earns a score below baseline.

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 that the tool returns top losers for an exchange and timeframe, using the specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'top losers'. It also lists supported exchanges, distinguishing it from sibling tools like top_gainers.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention top_gainers or other similar tools, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred use cases.

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