ldbd_get_trending_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions public access, no API key, the limited data returned (no direction/score/buzz), and the empty list behavior when the queue is empty. This covers the most important behavioral aspects, though it does not discuss rate limits or caching.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information about scope, access, data limitations, and edge-case behavior. 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, field list, access requirements, data limitations, and empty-list behavior. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention sorting or ordering of the returned trending assets, but this is not critical for invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', including its type, default value, and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'List today's trending assets', a specific verb and resource, and details the exact fields returned (symbol, display name, market, selection date). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like ldbd_get_asset or ldbd_search_assets by specifying the 'trending' and 'today's' scope and its origin from social/news buzz.

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 states when to use the tool (to get today's trending assets) and notes it is public with no API key needed. It also provides an implicit exclusion by stating 'Data only: no direction, score, or buzz signal is returned', signaling that users needing those metrics should look elsewhere, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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