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 of behavioral disclosure, and it only lists returned data fields. It says nothing about data freshness/latency (is the 'current price' real-time or cached?), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown coin.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the returned fields with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though the field enumeration makes the purpose read like a return-value list rather than a task statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained — yet the description spends its only sentence doing exactly that. For a simple one-parameter read tool the definition is adequate, but the coin identifier format and whether data is live remain unspecified.

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 single required 'coin' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all. It does not clarify whether coin expects a ticker symbol, an internal ID, or a name — exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve, especially given the sibling resolve_coin exists.

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 names a specific verb ('dondurur' = returns) and enumerates the exact resource contents: current price, market cap, ATH/ATL distance and changes. That is far more informative than the bare tool name, though it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_analysis or get_report, which likely also surface market data.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scoping context relative to the other nine market/analysis tools. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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