movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does substantial work: warrants/rights/units are excluded, rows must meet price and dollar-volume floors, and the gainers/losers categories skew small-cap. It does not mention data recency or exact thresholds, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and non-obvious.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by necessary caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 description covers the main output categories, tradeability filters, and an important interpretation caveat. However, it omits the time horizon (intraday vs. daily), market scope (e.g., US vs. global), the meaning of top, and any indication of output format — gaps that matter for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 only parameter, top, is not addressed in the description at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to explain what top controls — for example, whether it limits each category separately or the entire result set — but it remains ambiguous beyond the schema's bare 'Top' label.

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 identifies the resource as market movers with three categories: most active, gainers, and losers. It also adds filter context that helps distinguish it from a generic market screener, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists.'

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 interpretation guidance by explaining the small-cap skew and noting that large names appear in most_active, which is helpful for using the results correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like crypto_movers, screener_window, or market_today, nor when to avoid it.

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