top_movers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked lists (implying ordering by magnitude) but does not disclose sort direction, tie-breaking, whether an empty market returns empty results, or any data-freshness caveats.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and then enumerates modes; no filler. The bilingual Persian glosses cost tokens but plausibly help matching Persian-language queries, so they earn their place.

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 multi-mode ranked-list tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode space adequately and the schema covers the remaining parameters. It stops short of explaining how mode selection affects result shape or what a 'buy_queue'/'real_buyer_power' row actually contains, which would matter for a tool with this many distinct modes.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description does add real meaning to the 'kind' parameter by mapping modes to concepts (e.g. 'most traded' covering value/volume/trades, and the Persian aliases for queues and real-money flow), but it says nothing about 'market', 'security_type', or 'limit' beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource class ('ranked lists') and enumerates the concrete modes it returns: gainers/losers, most traded, buy/sell queues, real-money inflow/outflow, buyer power. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like market_watch or market_snapshot, though it never states the verb explicitly or names those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The enumerated modes hint at use cases, but overlapping siblings such as real_legal_flow and market_holder_moves are not mentioned, so an agent must guess which tool to pick for money-flow or holder-move questions.

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