narratives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the data source (CoinGecko Categories), caching behavior (~30min), and the free vs. subscription boundary. It does not specify the exact response structure, but the key behavioral caveats are surfaced.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is repetitive and slightly fragmented, restating the same narrative examples and mixing 'top tokens' with 'leading tokens'. It is not overly long, but tighter editing would improve it.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (top 3 narratives, 3 tokens each), the source, staleness, and the subscription boundary. The lack of an exact output schema is a minor gap for such a simple snapshot tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description cannot meaningfully add parameter-level detail. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and relevant contextual details like the preview limit and subscription requirement are already covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get top trending market narrative sectors') and names concrete examples such as AI, RWA, DePIN, and memecoins. It clearly indicates the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like narrative_history or trending.

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 implies usage context through 'Cached ~30min' and 'Free preview: top 3 narratives', suggesting this is a current-snapshot endpoint with access limitations. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives compared with related tools.

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