get_trending_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns only token identities (symbol, name, address, chainId) and not prices or volumes. This is sufficient for a read-only list tool. Additional details like authentication or rate limits are not mentioned, but not critical for this 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 extremely concise and well-structured: first sentence states the main purpose, second clarifies return content and follow-up, third gives usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the response contains and how to proceed for pricing. No gaps are apparent for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by providing example values for chainId ('base', 'ethereum') and explaining the default behavior for limit and chainId. However, it does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), specifies the resource ('currently trending tokens'), and clarifies the scope ('across Relay-supported chains'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns only token identities, not prices or volumes, and mentions follow-up tools for pricing.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'to answer "what tokens are trending?" or "what's popular on Base right now?"'. It also provides guidance on follow-up actions (use get_token_price or get_token_details for pricing). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context is clear.

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