Trending DEX tokens by volume. $0.03.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"api_key": "<api_key>"
},
"name": "get_meme_trending"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns trending tokens by volume, but omits critical details like required authentication (api_key), rate limits, cost implications of the '$0.03' mention, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 very short, but brevity here comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. The '$0.03' token is cryptic and undermines purpose. Important information is missing, making it not a model of conciseness.
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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the tool's behavior, return format, or parameter semantics, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the 'api_key' requirement or the 'limit' parameter's effect. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 states 'Trending DEX tokens by volume,' which gives a general purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention that it focuses on meme tokens (as the name suggests) and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_trending or get_meme_scan. The '$0.03' is ambiguous and adds confusion.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_trending or get_meme_analyze, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.
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.