botindex_zora_trending_coins

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 a cost ($0.03), which is useful, but lacks other critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of coins with metrics), any rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes no redundant information, making every word earn its place.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (trending coins). It mentions cost but omits details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in a domain with many siblings (e.g., crypto/attention markets), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

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: it returns trending Zora attention market coins based on volume velocity. It specifies the resource (Zora attention market coins) and metric (volume velocity), and includes a cost ($0.03). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_zora_attention_momentum' or 'botindex_zora_intel', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'botindex_zora_attention_momentum' or 'botindex_zora_intel', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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