trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it covers a lot: pagination, sorting/filtering options, multiple time windows, and a paid x402/USDC price. It does not detail the pagination format or response shape, but it does disclose the most important non-obvious trait, that the tool costs money.

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 one information-dense sentence plus a concise pricing line, with the most important identifying content front-loaded. The long list of sort views is necessary to convey scope, though it borders on a run-on.

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?

Despite listing many capabilities, the description is not complete enough for a tool with an empty input schema and no output schema: it never says how pagination, sorting, or filters should be expressed, and the payment flow is only summarized. An agent cannot reliably turn the advertised sort and filter behavior into a valid invocation.

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 zero properties, and the rule for 0-param tools sets a baseline of 4; there are no parameter names or types the description must clarify. The description alludes to 'optional filters' without schema support or names, so it cannot earn a 5.

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 names a concrete resource: paginated trending Solana tokens with a safety overlay, and lists included fields (risk level, holder count, lockup %, charity tag). It lacks a verb like 'get' and doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as token_stats or token_safety, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 sortable views and time windows (trending, volume, market_cap, gainers, 5m/1h/4h/24h) make it clear this is a market-overview/discovery tool, so usage is implied. However, it never says when to prefer trending over sibling tools like token_stats or flagged_tokens, nor does it give exclusions.

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