get_top_movers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the calculation formula (split-adjusted closing prices, change_pct) and the structure of the return data, which goes 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 well-structured with sections for formula, args, and returns. Every sentence is necessary and informative. No redundant or excessive text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers all aspects: input parameters, calculation details, and return structure. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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. It provides full explanations for all three parameters: date format (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD), direction (up/down with default), and n (1–100 with default). This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning.

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 clearly states it returns top stocks by percentage price change on a given date. It explicitly mentions 'top gainers' and 'top losers' via the direction parameter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_turnover_value and get_top_volume.

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 description is clear about when to use (to get top movers for a date) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives to other tools. However, the differentiation is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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