get_trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: it is a paid call costing 0.01 USDC via x402. It also names the upstream source and the data dimensions returned. It stops short of describing rate limits, freshness/caching, or failure behavior when payment is not settled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the sentence is short. The cost is stated twice ("0.01 USDC" at the start and "Cost: 0.01 USDC via x402" at the end), which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, and the payment requirement is stated, so an agent knows what it gets and what it costs. Only secondary details like result ordering guarantees and payment failure handling are missing for a three-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect mapping ("liquidity" to minLiquidity, "volume"/"new" to sort values) and does not explain the boosts vs gainers distinction or any constraints 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Trending and newly promoted Solana tokens") and adds the data source (DexScreener) plus the returned fields (price, liquidity, volume, age, risk flags). This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling get_new, which likely also surfaces newly promoted tokens.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a trending/promoted token list. There is no explicit statement of when to pick it over get_new, get_rugcheck, or get_token_report, and no exclusion criteria despite clear sibling overlap.

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