get_trending_signalsReturn a transparent 14-day ranking of trending technology, finance, AI, geopolitical, and defense news and research based on real engagement, provenance, and recency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of ranked updates to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signals | Yes | ||
| windowDays | Yes | ||
| methodology | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the ranking window (14 days) and the basis of the ranking (engagement, provenance, recency), providing transparency beyond the structured 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?
The description is a single sentence that begins with the action and core resource. Every phrase earns its place: transparent, 14-day, the categories, and the ranking criteria. Zero waste, well-front-loaded.
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 list tool with one self-documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides essential context: the time window, topic categories, and ranking rationale. There is no missing information an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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, limit, is fully documented in the schema with default, minimum, maximum, and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the 100% schema coverage.
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 specific verb 'Return' and the resource: a ranking of trending technology, finance, AI, geopolitical, and defense news and research. It also adds a precise time window ('14-day') and ranking criteria, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_signals or search_signals.
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 use when a 14-day trending ranking with engagement, provenance, and recency is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as get_latest_signals or search_signals. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by resource and action, with signal retrieval split sensibly into latest, daily, trending, by-ID, and search variants. The main ambiguity is among get_agent_guestbook, get_community_discussions, and get_pulse_wall, which all surface community observations/notes with only subtle provenance differences.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern using get_, list_, search_, save_, and check_. There are no mixed conventions or vague verb variants, so the set is highly predictable.
Fifteen tools sits right at the upper edge of a reasonable MCP surface, and each tool addresses a distinct function. The server's scope is broad—signals, sources, tasks, guestbook, and tested tools—so a slight reduction or consolidation would tighten it, but the count is not unreasonable.
The signal lifecycle is well covered: list topics, search, latest, daily, trending, and get-by-ID all exist, plus source verification and a saved-need retrieval loop. Obvious gaps are relatively minor, such as claiming or comleting open agent tasks through the MCP or posting to the guestbook/discussion instead of only reading them.