get_trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost per query ($0.001 USDC/query), which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it omits other transparency details such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how the output is structured. The cost disclosure is valuable but insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the options and cost. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives essential operational details. No fluff or redundant wording.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional parameter, no required fields) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, options, and cost. Missing context like rate limits or authentication is minor given the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 provides a single 'kind' parameter with a default but no enum or description. The description compensates by explicitly listing the valid options (gainers, losers, most_visited, latest), giving the parameter clear meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is a meaningful addition.

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 'Get trending crypto data' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates concrete options (gainers, losers, most_visited, latest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or search_token, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 fetching trending categories but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_listings or search_token. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance remains implicit.

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