screener_top_losers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of transparency. It only states a generic one-liner without disclosing details such as how losers are ranked, what technical indicators are returned, whether results are sorted, or any auth/rate limits. The behavioral traits are opaque.

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 9-word sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is too sparse to fully specify behavior. It lacks key context such as sorting order, definition of 'losing', and how technical indicators are used, especially given the crowded screener sibling set.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely restating 'technical indicators' which is not mapped to any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top losing cryptocurrencies on an exchange with technical indicators'), making the core function clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'screener_top_gainers' by specifying 'losing', though it does not explicitly compare with other screeners.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screener_top_gainers or screener_rsi_oversold. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferred.

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