Get trending pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does explain that results are current, chain-specific, and ranked by GeckoTerminal's trending score, which is useful. But it does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or potential variability of the trending list, so behavioral transparency is only moderate.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the key purpose and includes ranking context in a compact, efficient way.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description captures the core function but leaves some gaps: it does not mention the meaning of limit, the shape of the returned pools, or any caveats like the trending score being volatile. It is adequate for a simple read tool, but not fully complete.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The network parameter already has a helpful schema description, but the limit parameter has no description and the tool description does not explain that ‘limit’ controls how many trending pools are returned. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented limit, but it does not.

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 identifies what the tool does: returns currently-trending token pools on a single chain, ranked by GeckoTerminal's trending score. It uses a specific resource ('token pools'), a clear qualifier ('trending'), and a ranking basis, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_new_pools or find_early_wallets.

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 implies the use case — if you need currently-trending pools on a chain, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_new_pools or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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