Most Traded Coins

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying that results are ranked by trade count and volume, which is not present in annotations or schema. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and key ranking criteria, followed by a concise use-case sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters and well-documented schema, the description sufficiently conveys what to expect: a ranked list of actively traded coins. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the returned fields could improve it, but the description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 already documents both parameters (limit and useToonFormat) with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('most actively traded coins on Hyperliquid'), and adds the ranking basis ('by trade count and volume'). It is clear and useful, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar pulse_* siblings such as pulse_coin_kings or pulse_market_overview.

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?

'Use to understand what the market is focused on right now' gives a clear situational cue for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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