Get Post-Earnings Movers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns pre-computed price changes with earnings surprise data, lists fields, and emphasizes it's a single call. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds details about data fields and usage guidance.

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 parameters are well-defined in the schema, annotations indicate read-only, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and data returned without gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'Filter by minimum absolute % change threshold' for minChangePct, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Adequate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'stocks that moved significantly after earnings reports on a given date'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earnings_calendar and get_historical_prices by noting it's a pre-computed composite, making the purpose unique.

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 explicitly says 'no need to chain...', guiding the agent to use this tool instead of multiple calls. It also explains filtering by minChangePct. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., if raw data is needed), but context is clear.

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