get_token_trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without revealing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, time range for trends, or response format. This is a minimal, near-tautological statement that provides no additional behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, making it structurally efficient. However, it is almost too brief, omitting context that could be included without sacrificing conciseness, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still lacks critical context such as what 'trending' means, how results are ordered, and what the response format is. The schema provides the default value for 'limit' but the description adds no value beyond the tool's name.

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 has one parameter 'limit' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess that 'limit' controls the number of results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'trending tokens' from Solscan, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_token_list or get_token_price. The scope 'trending' is unique among the siblings, so the purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use case, exclusion criteria, or mention of sibling tools like get_token_list or get_token_price. The only cue is the word 'trending,' which implies a specific context but is not explicit.

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