ygo_get_trending_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: it names the live data sources (TCGPlayer, Yuyu-tei, TCGCorner, YGOPRODeck), discloses that trends come from weekly view counts, and flags that tournament share is an editorial estimate rather than measured data. It stops short of covering pagination, caching/rate limits, or what exactly is returned, so the read-only nature and result shape are only implied by the 'get' name.

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?

Three compact clauses with no filler, and the data-source/freshness information is front-loaded. It opens with a noun phrase instead of a verb-led statement of purpose, which slightly weakens the lead.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers data provenance and the key caveat about editorial tournament share. Because there is no output schema, it should ideally say what a returned item contains (rank, price, view count), which is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, format with its enum) are already fully documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. However, the description adds nothing about how 'format' affects the trending set or what 'high-demand' means for ordering, so it does not go beyond the schema either.

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 characterizes the output ('high-demand meta staples with live prices and live weekly views') rather than stating an action, so the tool's purpose must be inferred from the name. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like ygo_get_daily_meta, ygo_get_monthly_meta, or ygo_card_price_trends, leaving an agent unsure which trending/meta tool to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead for price history or daily/monthly meta. The note that trends derive from weekly views is a methodological caveat, not usage guidance.

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