Free tool ($0.00 USDC): Discover all currently active momentum and trending tokens tracked by the Autonomous Scout agent on Base L2.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_trending_assets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful behavioral facts: the call is free ($0.00 USDC) and the data comes from an 'Autonomous Scout agent' on Base L2. It omits other relevant traits such as data freshness/refresh cadence, expected result volume, and whether the list is paginated or capped.
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?
It is a single, tight sentence with no filler. The pricing detail is placed ahead of the actual purpose, which is slightly suboptimal front-loading, but nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what comes back. It tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually (trending tokens on Base L2) but not what a result record contains or how many to expect, leaving a meaningful gap for a discovery tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fire-and-forget call by not introducing any filtering options.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Discover ... momentum and trending tokens') plus the scope ('on Base L2') and data source ('tracked by the Autonomous Scout agent'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_base_dex_radar, which by name appears to cover overlapping Base-chain token data.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. The only contextual cue is 'Free tool ($0.00 USDC)', which describes cost rather than the situation that should select this tool over get_crypto_pulse or get_base_dex_radar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.