anyrun_trending

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

The description explains the data source ('ANY.RUN sandbox telemetry'), the selection basis ('based on analysis submissions'), and the temporal scope ('currently trending' / 'right now'). It is a read-only trend lookup and this is conveyed clearly even without annotations.

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?

Two sentences provide the core purpose and use case with minimal fluff. The only minor redundancy is 'currently' and 'right now,' but overall the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter trending feed with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result conceptually. It could add detail about return fields or trend window, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description complements the empty schema by specifying what the returned data represents: currently active malware families. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get currently trending malware families from ANY.RUN sandbox telemetry.' It clearly identifies both the data source and the intended result, and since no other sibling tool covers ANY.RUN trending data, it is well distinguished.

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 a clear use context: 'Useful for real-time threat landscape awareness.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the narrow scope of 'currently trending' makes the appropriate scenario evident.

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