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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses payment cost, endpoint, header, free units, and output categories. It also implies a read-only analysis via 'analysis' and 'shows' terms. While it lacks return format details, the covered aspects exceed typical transparency for a read-only tool, warranting a 4.

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 moderately concise, packing premium status, data sources, output labels, and call instructions into a few sentences. Emojis and promotional tone add some noise, but every sentence contributes information, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description partially compensates by listing possible result categories. However, it doesn't explain parameter requirements (e.g., whether address or query is needed) or return structure, leaving notable gaps for a 3-parameter tool. Thus, a 3.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, not clarifying optionality or relationships between query/address. Thus, a 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'Viral potential analysis' and specifies unique output categories (DEAD, QUIET, BUZZING, VIRAL, MEGA_VIRAL) while naming the data sources (Google Trends + DexScreener). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like momentum_score or token_scan, achieving high purpose clarity.

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 the tool is for analyzing viral potential but does not explicitly define when to use it versus alternatives. It provides usage prerequisites (premium payment, endpoint, header) but no context for choosing between sibling tools, scoring a 3 for implied usage without clear exclusions.

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