screener_top_gainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not specify how 'top gaining' is calculated, what technical indicators are returned, or the output structure. It also does not mention rate limits or data source limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 description explains the core functionality and main inputs, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return format or the exact technical indicators included. Given the tool's moderate complexity, more detail would improve completeness but the current description is adequate.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal additional meaning. It only loosely ties the 'exchange' parameter to the 'on an exchange' phrase but does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships.

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 identifies a specific action (Get), a specific resource (top gaining cryptocurrencies), and adds context (on an exchange with technical indicators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like screener_top_losers by specifying 'gaining' as opposed to losing.

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 implies usage when top gainers are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as screener_volume_surge or screener_rsi_oversold. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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