get_gpu_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the default sampling behavior ('~20 sampled data points over the window by default') and implies read-only via the GET endpoint, but it lacks statements about permissions, side effects, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a useful endpoint reference and two concrete examples. However, the opening is a fragment ('Time-series of...') which is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return types are not needed. The tool has 3 optional parameters, and the description covers two through examples but omits step entirely. Given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the tool is not fully self-explanatory, but it is adequate for a read-only data retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While examples illustrate gpu_names and window_hours, the step parameter is never mentioned, and no parameter is described in terms of format, units, or effect. The phrase about sampling hints at step but does not explain it.

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 identifies the tool as providing a time-series of GPU supply/demand/pricing, with the specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_gpu_metrics by focusing on historical trends ('Time-series'). The examples further clarify usage.

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 usage is implied through examples and the time-series nature, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gpu_metrics or search_offers. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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