pmus_get_bbo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the snapshot nature and lists the data fields, which gives some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on details like whether the data is real-time or delayed, or how 'depth counts' are calculated. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the returned components. It is efficient and scannable, with no filler. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. It lists the key data categories, making it clear what the snapshot contains. For a simple tool with one parameter and safe annotations, this is sufficient. Potential edge cases (e.g., nonexistent market) are not mentioned but are likely handled by errors.

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 for the only parameter (slug) is 100%, so the schema fully describes it as 'Market slug'. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, but since coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies. No ambiguity is left.

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 returns a 'Best bid/offer snapshot' and enumerates the included fields (bid, ask, last trade, depth counts, open interest, long/short display quotes, market state). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that conveys the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pmus_get_order_book, but the term 'best bid/offer' implies top-of-book vs full depth, so it is reasonably distinguishable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pmus_get_order_book or pmus_get_settlement. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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