tradingview_top_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's role is reduced. It adds minor behavioral context by noting 'Defaults to major US exchanges', but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or how the limit parameter affects results. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential purpose and defaults, though it could optionally mention the effect of the limit parameter or the inclusion of OTC stocks. Overall, it adequately informs the AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying default behavior for the exchange parameter ('Defaults to major US exchanges') and time context ('today'), which are not fully captured in the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'stocks with highest trading volume today', clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like tradingview_volume_breakout and tradingview_top_gainers by focusing on volume magnitude rather than breakouts or price changes.

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 usage context (stocks with highest volume today, default US exchanges) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like volume_breakout or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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