Get trending tickers (social)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safe read-only nature is known. The description adds transparency beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (mentionCount, prevMentionCount, deltaPercent, etc.) and the time window ('last few hours'), which gives the agent a clear picture of what data to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a compact list of output fields. It is concise and every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the time frame, and the intended use case. Since there is no output schema, the explicit listing of fields compensates. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to clarify parameters and instead focuses on output semantics, which 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 the tool returns the most-mentioned tickers across social platforms in the last few hours, with a specific list of fields. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'market-wide' discovery, differentiating it from tools like get_social_sentiment or get_social_trend that might focus on specific tickers or trend analysis.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use for market-wide "what is retail talking about right now" discovery and early momentum.' This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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