get_crypto_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data componentshol. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential failure modes, and the loc instruction could mislead behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and output contents. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists and there are only two parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the inaccurate loc instruction makes it less reliable, and since there are no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source; a brief note on supported locations or expected use would improve completeness.

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 a parametertion instruction, 'always set loc to "us"', but that conflicts with the schema enum that includes 'us', 'us-1', 'us-2', 'eu-1', and 'bs-1'. This actively misleads rather than clarifying 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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('snapshot for one or more crypto symbols'), and enumerates the contained data types (trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, previous daily bar). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that return only a single data type such as get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_latest_trade.

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 only usage guidance is 'always set loc to "us"', which addresses a parameter value rather than tool selection. There is no explanation of when an agent should choose this snapshot tool over alternative crypto data tools, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusion context.

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