trending

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the 5-minute cache, telling the agent to check meta.cacheAgeSeconds, and explaining meta.tokenCount. It does not detail the response shape beyond meta, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is somewhat redundant: "currently trending crypto tokens" and the DexScreener/CoinGecko source are stated twice. It could be tightened without losing meaning, though it remains reasonably compact.

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 essential context: data sources, ranking method, cache behavior, and relevant meta fields. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what it is getting, though a bit more detail about the token fields would make it fully complete.

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 accepts zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed; this matches the baseline for no-parameter tools. The description still usefully clarifies what the response meta contains, though that is more about outputs than inputs.

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 names a specific operation and resource: "Get currently trending crypto tokens." It further sharpens the scope with concrete criteria — "top gainers by 24h volume," sourced from DexScreener + CoinGecko — which clearly distinguishes it from broader analytics siblings like market_heatmap or narratives.

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 when to use the tool: when a user wants currently trending tokens by volume. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer suitability relative to the many sibling tools.

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