get_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining the expiration parameter's special values ('all', omit for nearest expiry) and states the return type as SnapshotResponse JSON. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, data freshness, or error behavior. For a read-only snapshot tool, the description is adequate but not exceptionally transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by an 'Args' section that explains each parameter, and a closing line for the return type. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to skim.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return type, and key behavioral nuance (expiration default). It does not include examples or error-handling details, but given the simplicity of the operation, it is reasonably complete. The lack of an output schema means the return format is not detailed, but the description explicitly names the response type, which is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'symbol' is described as 'Underlying ticker', and 'expiration' is fully explained with the Unix timestamp format, the special value 'all', and the default behavior when omitted. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and tells the agent exactly how to supply each argument.

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 a 'Compact analytics snapshot for a symbol' and distinguishes it from a 'full overview', which aligns with the sibling tool get_overview. The verb 'get' is implicit in the name, but the description makes it explicit by saying it returns the SnapshotResponse JSON. This is a specific resource (snapshot) with a clear scope (symbol and optional expiration).

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 says it is 'suitable for quick checks and cards' and explicitly frames it as a 'lighter-weight summary than the full overview', giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' conditions. The guidance is sufficient for most agents to infer when to choose this over a more detailed overview, but it lacks the named alternative or exclusion that would earn a 5.

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