Market Movers (alias)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output content (gainers, losers, most-active), which is beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or other operational details, but for a read-only alias this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It leads with the alias declaration and immediately follows with the output summary. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 parameterless alias tool with robust annotations, the description fully covers what it is and what it returns. No output schema is present, but the description succinctly describes the result set. There is nothing missing that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add any parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly omits any parameter talk.

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 explicitly states it is an alias for get_trending_stocks and enumerates the exact content: top gainers, losers, and most-active stocks. This is a specific verb-resource pair with clear output scope, and it immediately distinguishes itself from all siblings by naming the canonical tool it mirrors.

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 by declaring it an alias for get_trending_stocks, making usage unambiguous—the agent knows to treat it exactly like that sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this alias over the original or any conditions, though the alias nature makes that implicit. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of' but is still quite clear.

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