get_trending_coins

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

The description discloses that the tool returns detailed metrics in string format for 15 coins, including prices with up to 8 decimal places. It implies a read-only, no-side-effect operation. Without annotations, it covers the behavior well, but does not mention data freshness or rate limits.

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 reasonably concise, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a bullet list of returned fields. Every sentence adds value, but the list could be slightly trimmed without losing information. Overall well-structured.

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 absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully describes what the tool does and what it returns. It lists all relevant metrics and provides usage context. No gaps are apparent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without requiring any input. This meets the baseline of 4 and the description adds value by detailing the nature of the output.

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 returns the top 15 trending cryptocurrencies sorted by search popularity on CoinGecko. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_trending_categories' and 'get_trending_nfts' by specifying 'cryptocurrencies'. The verb 'get' and the resource 'trending_coins' are explicit.

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 explicit use cases: discovering attention-attracting cryptocurrencies, identifying emerging trends, or finding coins gaining popularity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the name and context make it clear this is for trending coins, not categories or NFTs.

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