get_trending_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (formatted table with specific columns) and parameter options with defaults. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-mutation, error handling, or rate limits. Still, it offers sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter details. It is slightly verbose with a docstring-like format but remains concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks cross-references to sibling tools or discussion of edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (described in text), it is mostly complete.

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: page (default 1), duration (options: 5m,1h,6h,24h, default 24h), include (comma-separated attributes with examples). It also describes the output. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Query all trending pools across all networks on GeckoTerminal and return a formatted table,' which clearly specifies the verb (query), resource (trending pools), and scope (all networks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trending_pools_by_network or get_new_pools.

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 usage for trending pools across all networks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not mention get_trending_pools_by_network for network-specific queries. Basic guidance is implied but not explicit.

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