cmc_trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the CoinMarketCap source. It does not disclose auth requirements for api_key, rate limits, whether 'trending' is a fixed window, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

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 a single short sentence with zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any distinction from competing crypto listing/quote/trending siblings and gives no explanation of the two undocumented parameters, so an agent cannot call it confidently without inspecting the schema and guessing.

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%, so neither parameter has documented meaning in the schema. The description does not mention 'limit' or 'api_key' at all, leaving the agent to guess whether limit controls result count and whether api_key is required or optional despite the required-parameters list showing zero required parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get trending cryptocurrencies from CoinMarketCap.' This clearly identifies the operation and data source. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as cmc_listings, cmc_quotes, crypto_trending, or crypto_top_coins, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 only implies that this is for 'trending' data and gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of cmc_listings, cmc_quotes, crypto_trending, or crypto_top_coins. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions.

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