crypto_trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists 'most searched' coins and is a retail attention indicator, but doesn't detail any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The description adds modest value beyond annotations.

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: two sentences plus examples. It front-loads the core function and provides immediate examples. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity, good annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's value (retail attention indicator) and source (CoinGecko), and the schema handles parameter details. No missing context.

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 description says 'Takes no coin' but does not mention the required 'params' object or the 'response_format' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's built-in descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists the coins currently trending on CoinGecko, with examples that make the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'breadth/attention' rather than analysis, quotes, or momentum.

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 provides usage context: it's a breadth/attention indicator for retail interest, takes no coin, and examples show typical queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like crypto_momentum or crypto_analyze, nor specify when not to use it.

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