get_trending_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking basis (trading activity) and the dimensional scope (Cardano DEXes), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, response shape, or empty-result behavior for a tool whose output schema is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, ranking, and scope with no wasted words. Structure is clean, though it is minimal to the point of omitting useful context rather than being 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?

For a two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core intent but omits any indication of what a returned token record contains or how results behave at boundaries. Adequate but with clear gaps given the missing structured 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (count, timeframe) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the timeframe dimension and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (trending tokens) with scope qualifiers (Cardano DEXes, ranked by trading activity, for a timeframe). An agent can identify the tool's function clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like search_tokens or get_rug_score, which would be needed for a 5.

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 a use case (viewing trending tokens) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names alternatives such as search_tokens. The agent must infer when this is preferable to browsing tokens another way.

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