get_trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It transparently notes the paid access requirement (API key or x402) and clarifies a specific output field nuance (summary.avgScore). It does not cover potential rate limits or error behavior, but the key operational quirks are addressed.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes critical information (definition, payment, field clarification). There is no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable overview of purpose and key metrics. It even clarifies a response field (summary.avgScore), which helps compensate for the missing output schema. However, it could be more complete by explicitly describing the paginated response structure or indicating that it returns a list.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for every parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal parameter-specific value. The brief mention of 'trend (rising/falling/stable from score history)' reinforces but does not extend what the schema already states. Baseline 3 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's function: 'Get trending breakout tickers' with specific criteria (2+ scans in last 30 days) and the returned metrics (aiScore, opportunityScore, performance, trend). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_signals or get_ticker by defining a distinct aggregation concept.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by defining what constitutes a trending ticker (2+ scans in 30 days) and the required payment method. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, so it stops short of full 'when vs. alternatives' guidance.

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