get_trending_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It covers payment details (cost, currency, network), error handling ('never charged for an error'), prerequisites (EVM_PRIVATE_KEY), and response format (limited teaser fields). This is extensive and goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most critical fact (paid $0.01). Every sentence adds essential information—what is returned, payment mechanics, error safety, and key requirement. No waste or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description explicitly lists the returned fields (id, slug, title, category, score, signalCount, lastSeen). It also covers payment, error handling, and prerequisites, making it fully self-contained for a tool of this complexity.

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, so there are no input semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on output and behavior, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is met.

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 returns the top 20 trending opportunity cards as teasers, with a specific list of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'no evidence; buy get_opportunity for the full card', making it unambiguous what this tool does versus alternatives.

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?

It explicitly names get_opportunity as the alternative for full cards, guiding when to use this tool vs. that one. It also provides critical usage context: payment required via x402, need for EVM_PRIVATE_KEY, and behavior without a key (returns 402 price terms).

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