avanza_live_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does indicate a read operation and implies repeated safe use via 'polling loops,' and it mentions payload-reduction behavior. But it does not disclose return contents, staleness, session/auth requirements, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 short and front-loads the core action and use case in a readable sentence. It earns its place but uses the somewhat vague phrase 'decision-ready' and could use that space to name the snapshot contents or key routing parameters.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what fields the snapshot contains, how instruments are selected, what refresh does, or how the various session/account/orderbook identifiers relate. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references 'compact instrument filtering,' which maps to compact and possibly instrument_name, but the other eight parameters—side, status, refresh, account_id, orderbook_id, order_book_id, session_id, and tenant_session_id—receive no semantic guidance.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Read a decision-ready snapshot for polling loops.' It conveys that this is a read-only snapshot tool and gives a use case. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling snapshot/quote tools such as avanza_realtime_quotes or avanza_orderbook_quotes, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 phrase 'for polling loops' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, and 'compact instrument filtering to reduce payload size' gives concrete guidance for the compact option. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, despite the large sibling set.

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