Retrieve top trending cryptocurrencies and NFTs on CoinGecko from the last 24 hours.
Get trending cryptocurrencies and NFTs on CoinGecko in the last 24 hours
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states a read action without disclosing potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves behavioral traits largely unspecified.
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 a single, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.
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?
While the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description does not elaborate on return structure or any other context. Without output schema, the agent lacks information on what data to expect, making it incomplete.
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 schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining the scope (trending items in 24 hours), which clarifies the tool's purpose without needing parameter details.
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 action ('Get trending'), the resource ('cryptocurrencies and NFTs on CoinGecko'), and a time constraint ('last 24 hours'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific metrics like price or fees.
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 its use for trending data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings, nor any conditions or exclusions. Minimal usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.