get_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. It does not mention that this is a read-only, non-destructive listing, nor does it cover rate limits, auth needs, or how trending is computed/ranked. 'Returns JSON' is a content-free statement rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted preamble. The trailing 'Returns JSON' is close to filler given no output schema exists to otherwise explain return values, so it is not a fully earned 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 2-param, zero-required read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of the return shape (array of symbols? objects with rank/volume?) beyond 'JSON'. The country parameter's scope is also unstated — whether it means 'trending within that market' is left implicit.

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% — both count (default 20) and country (full name or ISO code, default united states) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum set. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns currently trending/most watched stock symbols'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from price/history/financials siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is not, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use to find popular stocks before deeper analysis' gives a concrete when-to-use context tied to a workflow, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_screeners, search_stocks) or when-not-to-use conditions.

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