scores_top

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the main safety model. The description adds the return format and the top-ranked nature, but it does not disclose ordering direction, limit semantics, or whether the map includes all tickers beyond the limited result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the essential purpose and output format with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 simple read-only top-N tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what is returned and in what shape. It is slightly incomplete around limit semantics and sibling differentiation, but the annotations and simple schema keep the overall context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter. The property name and default value are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit meaning about how the limit affects the returned map.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), the resource ('top tickers'), and the selection criterion ('by quality score'), plus the exact output shape. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scores_list or scores_show.

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 phrasing implies use when the agent needs the highest-quality tickers rather than all scores or per-ticker details. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or exclusions despite many closely related sibling tools.

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