get_trending_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation (getting data) but does not clarify whether it returns potential duplicates, requires authentication, or how it sorts results (e.g., by volume first?). The description is minimal but not contradictory; it adds a sorting hint (volume/liquidity) and a limit parameter context, which is useful but incomplete for a read tool without annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the core purpose and key ranking criteria. There is no fluff or redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness and front-loading.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic grep-style tools. However, it lacks details on the return format or how the results are ordered (e.g., volume primary, liquidity secondary). For a discovery tool, it could specify whether it includes closed markets or requires authentication, but given the minimal complexity, the description is acceptable but has room for improvement.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (limit) with a clear description and default/max values. The description adds a semantic context by mentioning 'trending' and 'highest volume and liquidity', which helps interpret the limit as affecting the number of top markets. This adds value beyond the schema, even though the schema is already clear.

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: to retrieve trending/popular markets based on volume and liquidity. The verb 'get' combined with the resource 'trending_markets' is specific, and the mention of 'highest volume and liquidity' distinguishes it from generic market tools like search_markets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 a use case—when you need popular markets by volume and liquidity—but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or when not to. There are no exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like get_markets_by_category or search_markets, leaving usage context implicit.

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