get_trendingGet the top trending cryptocurrencies on CoinGecko right now, ranked by 24-hour search activity. Returns coin IDs, names, symbols, market cap ranks, and trend scores. No parameters required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | Yes | List of trending cryptocurrencies |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (coin IDs, names, symbols, market cap ranks, trend scores) and the ranking criterion (24-hour search activity), providing context beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and list outputs. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, how it ranks, and what it returns.
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 states 'No parameters required,' which matches the empty input schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning but is sufficient.
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 retrieves top trending cryptocurrencies on CoinGecko, ranked by 24-hour search activity, and lists the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_coins or get_coin.
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 explicitly notes 'No parameters required,' making usage obvious. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_coins or get_coin, though the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are near-duplicates or have heavily overlapping responsibilities (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_fill_risk, and ai_visibility_check / scan_competitor_ai_presence). The many meta/entry-point tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also blur the boundary between discovery and execution.
Tool names mix imperative verb-first patterns (get_coin, search_coins, validate_claim) with noun-phrase labels (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edge_tracker) and inconsistent prefixes. Snake_case is consistent, but the naming grammar and verb styles are not.
35 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count feels inflated by duplicate routing modes, overlapping polymarket scanners, and generic memory/meta utilities. A server nominally named Coingecko carries only 4 crypto tools while the overwhelming majority belong to unrelated domains.
As a CoinGecko server, the surface is severely incomplete: search/get/market/trending exist but historical prices, OHLC, exchanges, categories, and coin details are missing. As a broader data/prediction-market utility it is more expansive, but the lack of a coherent domain makes coverage impossible to assess as a single product.