market_coingecko_trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the ranking mechanism (based on user searches in the last 24 hours), but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or potential rate limits. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in expected 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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of any redundant words. It directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description does not clarify what information the returned coins include (e.g., names, symbols, prices, market cap). Without an output schema, this detail is left unspecified. The description adequately conveys the high-level purpose but could be more complete about the response format.

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, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, adding no unnecessary parameter details.

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 the tool's action ('Get'), the specific resource ('top 7 trending coins on CoinGecko'), and the scope ('based on user searches in the last 24 hours'). This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like market_coingecko_search or market_coingecko_coins_list, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for trending coin discovery, it does not mention exclusions or direct users to alternatives such as coingecko_get_trending or geckoterminal_trending_pools, which may serve similar purposes. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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