crypto_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully specifies the data source (CoinGecko) and result cardinality (top 7), but omits what 'trending' means algorithmically, whether results are real-time or cached, rate limits, or the return data structure.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Information is front-loaded with immediate clarity on action (Get), scope (top 7), subject (trending cryptocurrencies), and source (CoinGecko). Every word earns 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?

For a zero-parameter fetch tool, the description adequately covers essential invocation context. Lacking an output schema, it could benefit from a brief note on returned fields (e.g., symbol, name, rank), but remains sufficiently complete for agent selection among the crypto tool family.

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 contains zero parameters, which per guidelines earns a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no user-supplied filtering is needed for this fixed 'top 7' list operation.

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 specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'top 7 trending cryptocurrencies' and identifies the data source 'CoinGecko'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like crypto_price (specific asset pricing), crypto_search (query-based lookup), and crypto_market_overview (broad market data) by specifying the 'trending' scope and 7-item limit.

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?

While 'trending' implies usage for discovering popular assets rather than specific price lookups, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over crypto_market_overview or crypto_search. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided despite numerous sibling crypto tools.

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