pulse_most_traded_coins

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation and mentions ranking criteria. However, it omits details like whether data is real-time or historical, and does not disclose any side effects. The description is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the function, the second suggests usage. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not describe the output structure (e.g., ranked list with coins, trade count, volume) or the data source (e.g., real-time vs. snapshot). This leaves the agent with uncertainty about what the response contains.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (limit, useToonFormat) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 retrieves the most actively traded coins on Hyperliquid, ranked by trade count and volume. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on different aspects (e.g., pulse_biggest_trades for largest individual trades).

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?

It says 'Use to understand what the market is focused on right now,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pulse_market_overview or pulse_biggest_trades, leaving the agent to infer the best use case without alternatives.

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