tradingview_top_gainers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying that it returns today's data, filters by market cap, and excludes OTC by default. No contradictions; no additional critical behavioral gaps noted.

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?

Two succinct sentences front-load the core purpose and essential details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only tool with optional parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its defaults, and exclusions. No output schema exists, but the return type is implied. Minor gap: pagination or limit behavior could be clarified, but not critical.

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 describes all 3 parameters with defaults. The description enhances understanding by explaining the default exchange ('major US exchanges...') and why OTC is excluded, providing context beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('top gaining stocks'), and metric ('percentage change'). It specifies defaults (US exchanges, market cap > $100M) and exclusions (OTC), effectively differentiating it from siblings like tradingview_top_losers and tradingview_top_volume.

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 implies when to use: for top gainers on an exchange. It provides context on defaults and exclusions but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like tradingview_scan or tradingview_top_losers, though the tool name and purpose are self-explanatory.

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