Top 50 most-viewed English Wikipedia pages for a given date (default yesterday). Useful for 'what's the world reading about?' signal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional ISO YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to yesterday. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the default date behavior but does not address rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). The lack of explicit behavioral traits is a gap but acceptable for a simple tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the basic behavior. However, it does not mention the return format or structure of the results, which would be helpful for an agent without an output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the one parameter. The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 tool returns the top 50 most-viewed English Wikipedia pages for a given date, with a specific verb (retrieve/list) and resource (trending pages). It distinguishes from siblings like wikidata_search, wiki_page_summary, and wiki_recent_changes by focusing on trending content.
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 provides a clear use case ('what's the world reading about?' signal) implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools cover other search/summary use cases.
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.
Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: entity search, page summary, live edits feed, and trending page rankings. No ambiguity between tools.
All tools share a 'wiki_' prefix, but the naming patterns vary: 'wikidata_search' uses noun_verb? 'wiki_page_summary' is noun_noun, 'wiki_recent_changes' is adjective_noun, and 'wiki_trending' is adjective. Lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose around Wikipedia recent changes and trends. Each tool serves a clear need without bloat or insufficiency.
Covers key operations: entity search, page summary, live changes, and trending. Minor gaps like full page content retrieval or per-edit history exist, but the core use case is well-covered.