get_top_turnover_value

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it is 'cache-only, no API call' for certain plans, which is useful. However, no mention of rate limits, auth needs, or other behaviors beyond that minimal extra.

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 a clear main line, usage hints, plan info, and formatted Args list. It is front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy ('All plans' followed by detailed list) but overall efficient.

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 (2 params, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, differentiation, parameter details, and caching behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section fully documents both parameters: date format (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD) and n range (1–100) with default 10. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Return top stocks by turnover value' and clarifies the metric is price×volume, distinguishing it from get_top_volume which uses share count. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 lists applicable queries ('turnover', 'trading value') and contrasts with get_top_volume. It also mentions plan support and caching behavior, providing clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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