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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context: source mix, ordering, per-token fields, risk badge, swapUrl, display markdown, and required user-facing safety behavior. It clearly discloses the risky asset class without contradicting 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?

Front-loads the purpose and sources, then moves through output fields, safety guidance, and display handling. It is dense but mostly purposeful; the final swapchan_playbook workflow list is broader than this tool alone and slightly reduces tightness.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain returns; it lists token fields, risk badge, swapUrl, and display markdown. Combined with high schema coverage and read-only/open-world annotations, it gives enough context to call the tool and use the result 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?

Schema coverage is 83% and the schema documents chain, window, minVolumeUsd, minLiquidityUsd, and maxAgeHours. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or filtering details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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?

States it returns trending tokens from GeckoTerminal trending pools and DexScreener top boosts, ordered by boosts/trades. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with scan_movers or scan_new_tokens, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives downstream instructions such as showing the display markdown, risk level/flags/disclaimer, and suggesting token_risk before swapping, and points to swapchan_playbook for workflows. However, it never states when to choose scan_trending over scan_movers or scan_new_tokens, so selection guidance is only implied.

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