SNACS.Trade

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-first, and the date bounds are optional. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with an output schema present, this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the resource, ordering, and filtering without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it immediately scannable.

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 simple nature of the tool (4 params, output schema present, annotations present), the description covers the essential information: what data is returned, in what order, and how to optionally bound it. It could theoretically mention the limit, but that is already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats ticker and date_from/date_to but adds no meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates that they bound the results. This is the baseline score for full schema coverage with no added parameter insight.

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 states it returns 'Daily OHLCV bars for a ticker, newest first' with optional date bounding. This precisely identifies the resource (daily OHLCV bars), the subject (a ticker), and the ordering, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like snacs_quote_get or snacs_snapshot_get.

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 clearly implies a read-only retrieval tool for historical daily price data, and the date-range clause suggests usage for bounded time windows. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the source (SEC filings), newest-first ordering, and the 'forensically covered' prerequisite. It does not contradict 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?

The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. Every element (authoritative, point-in-time, from SEC filings, newest first) 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?

With a simple 2-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the source, ordering, and coverage constraint. No additional behavior or return details are necessary.

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 100% for both parameters. The description adds a meaningful constraint on the ticker parameter by stating it must be 'forensically covered,' which is not explicitly in the schema. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 a specific resource (share-count checkpoints), source (SEC filings), and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the unique 'checkpoints' resource type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for forensically covered tickers and point-in-time share-count data, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is well-defined so an agent can infer appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context by enumerating the coverage dimensions and describing output types (counts vs. per-ticker flags), which goes beyond the structured fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful clarity about what the call returns.

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-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence names the tool's function, the second explains the two modes. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema/annotations.

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 an output schema exists, parameter count of 1, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary information: both invocation modes and the relevant coverage categories. The tool's behavior is fully specified for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'ticker' parameter with omit instructions. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that a ticker yields 'multi-dimensional coverage flags' and listing the specific dimensions. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic usage note.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Coverage discovery.' It specifies two distinct behaviors based on presence of ticker, and names concrete data dimensions (forensic dilution, market data, news, SEC filings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snacs_coverage_list by focusing on coverage flags rather than list semantics.

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 by describing two modes (with/without ticker) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Sibling 'snacs_coverage_list' exists but no differentiation is provided, so the agent might conflate the two.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safe read nature is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about keyset pagination and passing next_cursor to continue, which is not conveyed by annotations. It does not disclose rate limits or response formatting, but the output schema covers return values.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the core action, dimension constraint, and pagination behavior. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the key pagination mechanism and dimension values, and does not need to detail return values since an output schema exists. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% for all three parameters (limit, cursor, dimension), so the schema already explains them. The description re-emphasizes the dimension values and cursor pagination, but does not add meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 lists covered tickers for a dimension, with specific verb ('List') and resource ('covered tickers'), and includes dimension values. It distinguishes from most siblings that are 'get' operations, but does not explicitly contrast with snacs_coverage_get, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: listing covered tickers for a dimension, with keyset pagination and cursor reuse. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds useful temporal context ('effective on/before', 'events up to it') but doesn't clarify what 'covered ticker' means or what happens if no checkpoint exists on/before the date.

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 compact sentence with a colon-delimited list. Every element earns its place—ticker scope, as-of date, and three state components—with no redundant wording.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately captures the core function and temporal semantics. The only minor gap is the undefined 'covered ticker' restriction, but overall it is complete for its complexity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (ticker format and as_of with no-lookahead-bias guarantee). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a point-in-time forensic state for a covered ticker, listing the included components (share checkpoint, facilities, events). It distinguishes from current-state tools by emphasizing 'as of' and temporal boundaries, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct sibling comparison.

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?

No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The 'point-in-time' and 'as of' language implies historical/forensic use, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over snacs_dilution_get or granular endpoints, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source (SEC filings) and the forensic nature, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the snapshot reflects the latest filing, any latency, or how the risk state is computed. Some value added, but not extensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key output components. No redundant or filler words. It earns its place with every word contributing to understanding.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The tool has a simple input (ticker) and the description lists the key data fields. However, it does not clarify the distinction from snacs_dilution_asof_get, which could be a contextual gap for an agent choosing between them. Otherwise, the description is adequate for a read-only snapshot tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (ticker) with a clear description. The tool description merely repeats 'for a ticker' without adding new meaning. With schema description coverage high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic detail is provided.

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 the tool as a dilution snapshot for a ticker, listing specific data elements (share counts, facility capacity, runway, dilution risk state) and the data source (SEC filings). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool snacs_dilution_asof_get, which also appears dilution-focused, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Forensic' and 'SEC filings', implying current/fundamental data, but does not state exclusions or point to sibling tools like snacs_dilution_asof_get for historical/as-of queries. The agent is left without clear selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context about the 'forensically covered ticker' constraint and the verbatim SEC quote substantiation, which informs the agent about data quality and scope.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that packs the essential purpose and distinguishing detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema. It could mention the 'newest first' ordering or the ticker requirement, but those are in the schema, so not required.

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 100% for both parameters (limit and ticker), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is fine.

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 uses a specific verb ('Corporate events') with resource ('splits, offerings, redomestications') and adds a distinguishing feature (verbatim SEC quote). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like news, sec_filings, and fundamentals.

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 use when needing corporate events with SEC substantiation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance against sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context that it applies to 'forensically covered tickers' and enumerates facility types, which goes beyond schema. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors such as handling of uncovered tickers or response edge cases.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. The dash-separated attribute list is efficient and scannable, making every word purposeful.

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?

For a read-only tool with full parameter coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core 'what' and 'for whom' adequately. It lacks explicit relationship to sibling dilution tools, which would strengthen the overall contextual picture.

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 coverage is 100% with both ticker and limit described, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (dilution facilities) and adds specificity with facility types (shelf/ATM/warrants/convertibles) and attributes (capacity, usage, remaining, prices, status). It differentiates itself from sibling dilution tools by focusing on facilities, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like snacs_dilution_get or snacs_dilution_asof_get. The description implies it returns current facility data but does not state exclusions or list alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by listing the exact data points included, but does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, handling of missing data). This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key data points. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it returns. No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'ticker' is well-described as 'U.S. ticker symbol, e.g. GPUS.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 'latest fundamentals for a ticker' and enumerates specific metrics (float, market cap, shares outstanding, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote or snapshot, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need fundamental data for a ticker. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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

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

The description adds a critical security-related behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it warns that headline and body are third-party content wrapped in EXTERNAL-CONTENT boundaries and should be treated as data, not instructions. It also clarifies the 'newest first' ordering, providing useful operational context.

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 two precise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a valuable safety note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ordering, and a security warning. The annotations and schema cover the rest, leaving no major 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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (ticker and limit), and the description does not add additional parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description correctly relies on the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Recent news for a ticker (newest first)', specifying both the resource (news) and behavior (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snacs_bars_get or snacs_quote_get, which address different data types.

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 for retrieving recent news for a ticker but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention specific scenarios, but the intent is clear enough for basic use.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the conditional source selection (live vs last_session vs daily) and the invariant that the latest daily bar is always included when available. This gives the agent insight into the response's variability without over-explaining the output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Composite quote', and every clause adds meaningful detail about the source logic. There is no redundant information or filler. It is compact while fully explaining the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description thoroughly explains the selection logic and the guaranteed inclusion of the daily bar, which covers the key behavioral aspects. For a quote-retrieval tool of this complexity, nothing critical is missing given the structured metadata available.

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 100% for the single required parameter 'ticker', including an example. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra compensation is needed.

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 defines what the tool returns: a composite quote with specific source selection logic based on publishing state. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by describing the 'live', 'last_session', and 'daily' fallback behavior. Although it uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, the scope is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear context on when each source is used (publishing hours, off-hours, fallback), which implies when this tool is appropriate for getting a quote. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for choosing this tool over sibling tools like snacs_snapshot_get, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that results are 'keyset-paginated by ticker,' which informs the agent about iteration mechanics. It does not contradict annotations, and the read-only nature is already declared. No additional traits like rate limits are mentioned, but annotations lower the burden.

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, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential operational details (coverage and pagination) in an efficient manner.

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 simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description provides sufficient information: what it screens, across what universe, and how pagination works. The output schema covers return values, and the annotation covers safety, making the description complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the pagination mechanism ('keyset-paginated by ticker'), which adds semantic meaning to the 'cursor' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'opaque cursor' description. This provides useful context for how the limit and cursor interact.

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 the tool as a 'Dilution screener over all covered tickers' with a specific verb ('screener'), resource scope ('all covered tickers'), and pagination method ('keyset-paginated by ticker'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snacs_dilution_get, which presumably target individual tickers.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'over all covered tickers,' suggesting it is for screening across the entire universe rather than querying a single ticker. However, no explicit alternatives are named, nor is there direct guidance on when to prefer this over snacs_dilution_get or snacs_dilution_asof_get.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read operation is covered. The description adds useful context about ordering (newest first) and the filing_url pointing to EDGAR, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key points (ticker, sorting, filtering, URL link) are front-loaded and every word 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It covers the core behavior, ordering, filter, and the important EDGAR link. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists, and the schema documents parameter limits and defaults.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by providing form type examples (8-K, 424B5) and emphasizing newest-first ordering, but parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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 recent SEC filings for a ticker, sorted newest first, with optional form type filtering. This specific verb-resource combination (get SEC filings) distinguishes it from sibling tools like news or quote endpoints.

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 when a user needs SEC filing data for a ticker, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, notably explaining the stale flag (market closed) and clarifying that 'most active' is defined by dollar volume. It does not discuss pagination or permissions, but given the read-only annotation and simple nature of the tool, this is adequate and honest.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, and every sentence provides necessary information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

The description covers the main behavior, the two modes, and the stale flag nuance. Since an output schema exists, return format details are not required. It does not mention limit constraints or ticker format, but those are already in the input schema. For a simple read-only snapshot tool, the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the ticker behavior already in the schema ('Omit for the most-active rows by dollar volume'), but adds a slight clarification of what the response will contain in each mode. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema description is clear. Thus the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: it returns a live scanner snapshot, with behavior varying based on whether a ticker is provided. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scanner context and the two operational modes (ticker row vs. most-active rows). The scope is unambiguous.

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: you use this tool to get scanner snapshot data, with or without a ticker. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like snacs_quote_get or snacs_bars_get, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The guidance is present but implicit.

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