get_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly describes a read-only operation returning specific data. However, it lacks explicit mention of non-destructive nature or any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's action and scope, and the second lists the returned fields. No unnecessary words, well-structured with key information front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and its output. However, lacking output schema means the agent must infer field types.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to cover parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what data is returned, which is sufficient.

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 retrieves 'top trending coins' over 24 hours based on search volume, specifying the returned fields (name, symbol, rank, market cap, 24h price change). It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin_details (specific coin) and get_market_overview (broader market data).

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 mentions usefulness 'for spotting momentum and emerging narratives,' which implies context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_overview or search_coins. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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