get_trending_pools_by_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explains parameters, defaults, and return format, which is adequate for a read-only query tool. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly tighter.

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 tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema provided but described), the description covers the necessary details for an agent to use it correctly. It lists return columns and parameter defaults, making it fairly complete despite missing error 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and lists duration options. The 'include' parameter could be more explicit about valid attributes, but overall it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 it queries trending pools for a specific network and returns a formatted table. The verb 'query' and resource 'trending pools' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_trending_pools' which likely covers all networks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trending_pools' or 'get_top_pools_by_network'. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it. The context 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.