tenero_top_gainers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required and names the backing API, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or what fields a 'gaining token' record contains. It also claims Stacks-only scope while the `chain` parameter accepts spark and sportsfun, leaving the actual coverage ambiguous.

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 opening two sentences are efficient and front-loaded with the operative definition. However, the vendor attribution '(api.tenero.io)' and the unrelated 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' sentence consume space without helping the agent select or invoke this tool.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and auth but omits the return shape (symbol, price, percentage fields) and any behavior on empty or limited results. Adequate to call, but not enough to predict the response.

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 `chain` (with its enum-of-values note) and `limit` (default 10, max 50) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the ranking or result set, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top gaining tokens by 24h price change percentage') scoped to the Stacks ecosystem, which clearly separates it from tenero_top_losers and tenero_trending_pools by metric. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the contrast from the name.

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?

'Useful for spotting momentum and trending assets' implies a use case but gives no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative tools. The closing tip instead cross-sells `earning_opportunities`, which does not help decide between this tool and its market-data siblings.

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