get_trending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about cost ('Cost: $0.005 USDC via x402'), which is a behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, response format, or other operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one stating the cost. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and cost information but lacks details about return values (what data structure, fields, examples) and other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error conditions. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves some gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and cost instead.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('currently trending cryptocurrency tokens based on search interest'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_crypto_price (price data) or token_analysis (analysis). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with a specific scope.

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 usage context (when you need trending tokens based on search interest) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling tool comparisons.

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