get_top_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: accepted date formats, the n parameter range and default, and the exact return structure (up to n items, each with code, volume, turnover_value, close). This exceeds minimal expectations, though it could mention potential edge cases like non-trading dates.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args/Returns breakdown. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the return format and parameter constraints. Minor gaps include no mention of error behavior or when to use alternatives, but these are not critical given the annotations and simplicity.

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 full burden. It fully explains both parameters: date format (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD) and n (range 1-100, default 10). This is complete and unambiguous.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return top stocks by trading volume on a given date.' It uses a specific verb, identifies the resource (stocks by volume), and includes the temporal scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_turnover_value (turnover value) and detect_volume_surge.

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 clear context for use: it is for retrieving a ranked list of the most traded stocks on a specific date. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, such as using get_top_turnover_value for value-based rankings. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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