Top Movers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the schema cannot: Tabdeal publishes no volume, so its coins bypass the volume filter entirely. That is a genuine disclosure about result composition, though it says nothing about ordering ties or response shape.

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?

Two short sentences: the core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence is a genuinely useful operational note plus next-step pointer. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description would ideally hint at the returned fields beyond `coin`, but the follow-up instruction implies a per-coin list with identifiers, which is enough to plan a call. All five parameters are documented in the schema, and the volume-filter caveat closes the main operational gap.

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 100%, with enums and defaults on exchange/direction/quote/limit/min_volume, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the filtering concept and the Tabdeal carve-out rather than adding syntax or units beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the biggest 24h gainers or losers on one exchange') with an explicit scoping qualifier ('illiquid coins filtered out'). This is clearly separable from siblings like ic_list_markets (all markets) and ic_candles (history) without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a clear follow-up path — pass a mover's `coin` to ic_get_ticker or ic_compare_price for detail — which routes the agent to the right siblings. It does not state when to prefer this over ic_list_markets or ic_candles for a broader/historical view, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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