get_trending_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns specific data fields and is for discovery, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 purpose and followed by usage guidance. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return details) to enhance clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return data but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple read tool, scoring at the minimum viable level.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behavior or usage context for the limit). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Get the list of trending/active tokens on Omni.fun' with specific details about the returned data (names, symbols, prices, market caps, bonding curve progress). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_token' (likely for single tokens) and 'search_tokens' (likely for filtered searches) by focusing on trending/active tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to discover what tokens are available for trading' suggests it's for discovery purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_tokens' or 'get_token', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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