get_trending_coins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the dynamic ranking mechanism, default limit (top 50), inclusion of USD prices, and additional statistics like 24-hour volume. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose, second explains the ranking and default behavior, third adds details about response content. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness: it explains what 'trending' means, specifies default behavior, and describes response content including prices and statistics. The main gap is the lack of output format details (structure of returned data), but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear purpose, this is a minor omission.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does contextualize the overall output (e.g., 'price of each trending coin in USD' relates to referenceCurrencyUuid). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Get a list of trending coins' with specific details about ranking ('ranked dynamically based on user engagement and popularity'), default behavior ('returns the top 50 trending coins'), and output format ('price of each trending coin in USD'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets' by focusing specifically on trending coins rather than general coin data.

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 usage context by explaining what 'trending coins' means and the default behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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