Get Intent Trends

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: payment required ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402) and conditional response (payment challenge vs. settled data). This goes beyond the schema but could mention rate limits or failure handling.

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?

Extremely concise: two clear sentences front-loading the critical payment behavior, with no redundant information.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description explains purpose and unique behavior. It hints at output (top endpoints/categories) but could be more explicit about response structure.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate parameter descriptions (limit, window with default and enum). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('top requested x402 endpoints and categories by autonomous agents') and the action ('get'), with specific detail about splitting by traffic class. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_category_demand' and 'get_intent_report'.

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 payment requirements (with or without key) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not scenarios.

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