Retrieve trending entities and articles filtered by a specified time window.
Trending entities + articles by window.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_trending"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| window | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid parameters, or how results are sorted/limited. The short description fails to provide essential behavioral context.
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 extremely concise (four words), which is efficient but at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the core idea but omits necessary detail, striking a poor balance between brevity and informativeness.
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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters ('limit' and 'window'). It only mentions 'by window,' which echoes the parameter name without explaining valid values, formats, or behavior. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 'Trending entities + articles by window' clearly indicates the tool returns trending entities and articles filtered by a time window. It effectively distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on specific entities, news search, or sentiment, but lacks precise detail on what constitutes 'trending' or how 'window' is applied.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_news or get_entity. The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, forcing the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.