social_get_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does not state whether the operation is safe, read-only, or what output format to expect. This leaves the agent without critical context for a tool that may have no side effects but also no explicit safety assurance.

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 with the primary action ('Get trending topics/narratives') and does not contain unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the tool's core purpose but does not discuss response format, param behavior, or any edge cases. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'category'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema already documents them. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves trending topics/narratives in crypto social media. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like social_get_topic or social_get_trending_posts, which may also return topic-related data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as social_get_topic or social_get_trending_posts. The description implies a general use case but provides no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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