get_top_turnover_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'cache-only, no API call' and supported plans (Free/Light/Standard/Premium), plus the ranking basis being price×volume. This is helpful behavioral information without contradicting the annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence, then usage guidance, ranking clarification, and arg details. Slight redundancy exists: 'All plans' and then '[Supported plans] Free / Light / Standard / Premium' repeat the same information. Minor, but keeps it from a perfect score.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), and the description covers everything needed: what it returns, how it ranks, when to use it, parameter formats, and plan limitations. Combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema, the description is fully adequate for the agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 fully explain parameters. It does this well: date format is specified as 'YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD', and n is documented with range and default ('1–100, Default 10'). This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 and resource: 'Return top stocks by turnover value on a given date.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_top_volume by stating 'Ranks by price×volume (get_top_volume ranks by share count instead).' This makes the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Use for 売買代金ランキング・売買代金・turnover・trading value queries.' It also names the alternative tool for a different metric (get_top_volume for share count), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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