Fetch the top N tickers based on a scoring system and return their score history, enabling trend analysis and performance evaluation.
Fetch the top-N tickers and return their score history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| scoring_system_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does indicate the output is 'score history', but it does not clarify how top-N is determined, what scoring_system_id controls, or whether results are sorted or paginated.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it does not repeat information already available in the annotations or schema.
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 only two optional parameters and read-only annotations, so the description is sufficient for a basic default call. However, with no output schema, it leaves the structure of the returned score history unspecified, and scoring_system_id remains unexplained.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It implicitly explains 'top' via 'top-N', but it never mentions scoring_system_id, its effect on results, or where to find valid scoring system IDs.
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 concrete operation and resource: 'Fetch the top-N tickers' and specifies the return type 'score history'. This clearly separates it from siblings like history_ticker (single ticker), history_batch (arbitrary tickers), and scores_top (current top scores without history).
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 is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention that history_ticker covers a single ticker, history_batch covers multiple specific tickers, or that scores_top returns a current snapshot. The agent must infer the intended use from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.