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 mentions the return format ('List of trending tokens with volume, price change, and social metrics') and includes a price ('$0.50'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for a mutation-free but potentially complex data retrieval 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses clear sections (Args, Returns) and bullet-like formatting without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence earns its place, and the price information is efficiently appended.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and cost. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to exhaustively explain return values. However, it lacks usage context and some behavioral details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by documenting both parameters in the 'Args' section: 'chain' with specific blockchain options and 'limit' with a maximum constraint. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples.

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 purpose: 'Get trending tokens across DeFi platforms.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trending tokens'), and provides scope ('across DeFi platforms'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_metadata' or 'get_token_price' which might retrieve different token information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_token_sentiment' or 'get_trade_signals' that might also involve token analysis. The only implicit context is the need for trending token data.

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