geckoterminal_trending_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by defining trending as 'hot new tokens and high activity pools,' but it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting order, or rate limits, which would be useful for a listing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The dash separates the action from the explanatory context, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling pool tools and omits any mention of response structure or pagination, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (page and network) with descriptions. The tool description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('trending pools'), and scope ('across all networks or on a specific network'). The added phrase 'hot new tokens and high activity pools' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like geckoterminal_new_pools or geckoterminal_top_pools.

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 clear usage context by stating the tool works across all networks or a specific network, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to similar geckoterminal pool tools.

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