Register and pay for a trending slot by specifying a token address, chain, and duration to promote a token in GDEX Trading.
Register / pay for a trending slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| slot | No | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| userId | No | ||
| accountRef | No | Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat | |
| computedData | No | ||
| tokenAddress | Yes | ||
| durationHours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.0Input schema / properties / accountRefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "tokenAddress",
- "chain",
- "userId"
-]New value: +[
+ "tokenAddress",
+ "chain"
+]v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only that money is involved ('pay'), without stating cost, currency, which chain, irreversibility, or what 'register' mutates. Given the destructive annotation, this is thin.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, which is appropriately sized. But it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of meaning, and there is no structure to front-load the key constraint (cost).
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 an 8-parameter, payment-involving mutation with no output schema and almost no parameter documentation, the definition is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine cost, credentials, success/failure outcome, or the meaning of most inputs from this description.
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?
Schema coverage is only 13% (just accountRef), and the description explains none of the 8 parameters — slot, chain, tokenAddress, durationHours, data, and computedData are all opaque (e.g., is 'slot' an ID, a name, or a position?). It does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.
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 names an action ('register/pay') and a resource ('trending slot'), so the domain is identifiable against siblings like trending_list and trending_options. However, it is vague about what a 'trending slot' actually is and whether the tool registers a slot, pays for one, or both, leaving the core operation ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus trending_options, trending_booking_status, or trending_list, and no prerequisites or ordering (e.g., must a slot be chosen first?). The agent is left to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.