Ordiscan: getTrendingCoins

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (CoinGecko) and the time frame ('last 24 hours'), which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the output logic. Every sentence is meaningful, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (trending coins based on search interest in 24h). There are no missing details that would hinder correct usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and it is clear that no inputs are required.

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 identifies the resource ('trending cryptocurrencies on CoinGecko'), and further specifies the selection criterion ('highest search interest in the last 24 hours'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like birdeyeTrendingTokens (which uses a different data source) and searchCryptoByName (which is for search, not trending).

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 for retrieving currently trending coins from CoinGecko but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context for when not to use it. No guidance on related tools is given.

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