scores_market_cap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds 'aggregated' and 'USD' context, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key result ('aggregated total market cap (USD)') and wastes no tokens.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and no required arguments, and annotations cover the read-only behavior. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify the return format or the precise interaction between min_score and sectors, leaving it at minimum viable completeness.

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%, and the description's 'filtered universe' is too vague to map to the two parameters, sectors and min_score. It does not explain how these parameters affect the aggregation, leaving the schema titles to carry the semantic weight.

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 ('Return') and resource ('aggregated total market cap (USD)'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling score tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as scores_statistics or scores_top. The phrase 'for a filtered universe' implies a use case, but there are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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