get_market_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a result-cardinality cap ('Never returns all ~500 securities') and a hard limit ceiling (max 100), which are real behavioral constraints. It omits read-only/auth expectations, pagination, and what the breadth summary contains.

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?

Very compact — one lead sentence plus a tight parameter gloss — and the cardinality warning is placed where it matters. The line-broken layout is slightly fragmented but there is no 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers parameter behavior well but leaves the return shape ('breadth summary') and sector-name validation unspecified. Adequate but with visible gaps for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines each category value's ranking basis (top change %, bottom change %, most traded), clarifies sector is filtered by name, and reveals the max of 100 on `limit`, none of which appear in the schema. Only the default of 15 for limit is left to 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?

States a specific resource and deliverable ('Market-wide snapshot with top movers and a breadth summary'), which is clearly distinct from single-symbol siblings like get_quote or get_indices. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives practical usage detail on the category enum and sector filter, and warns that not all ~500 securities are returned so `limit` should be raised. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_indices, get_quote, or search_symbols — usage context is implied rather than compared.

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