trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source (CoinGecko), the metric (search volume), the time window (last 24 hours), and the output size (top 10). It does not mention rate limits or whether an API key is required, but given the simple read-only nature and presence of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 core statement. The second sentence adds essential context about the trending metric, and the example prompts are practical without being verbose. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, how trending is determined, and when to use it. The only gap is the lack of api_key parameter guidance, but that is a minor omission for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 description provides no explanation of the single api_key parameter, and the schema coverage is 0%. The optional api_key with a default empty string is not described, so the agent cannot infer when or how to provide it. The description should at least note that an API key is optional or required for higher rate limits.

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's function: 'Get the top 10 trending cryptocurrencies on CoinGecko right now.' It specifies the resource (CoinGecko), the action (get), the result limit (top 10), and the temporal scope (right now). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating trending is based on search volume over 24 hours, which distinguishes it from top_coins or price tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool through example prompts like 'What is trending in crypto today?' and 'Show me the hottest coins right now.' It implies usage for trending/search-volume queries, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., top_coins for market cap) or name sibling tools as alternatives.

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