cmc_trending

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that an API key is required (though a parameter exists), rate limits, or what sort of data is returned (e.g., list of coin symbols, prices, ranks). The description is too minimal for mutation-safe understanding.

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?

Extremely concise at five words, no wasted text. However, it is overly minimal for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema. A bit more detail (e.g., one sentence per parameter) would improve without losing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about return format, authentication, and usage. Incomplete for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds no meaning to the two parameters ('limit' and 'api_key'). It fails to explain that 'limit' controls result count or that 'api_key' is needed for authentication. The description provides no value beyond the schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves trending cryptocurrencies from CoinMarketCap, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trending cryptocurrencies'). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'crypto_trending' or 'cmc_trending' ambiguity. A more precise scope (e.g., what 'trending' means) would improve clarity.

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?

No information on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cmc_listings' for all coins, 'cmc_quotes' for price data). No guidance on prerequisites or context. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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