crypto_get_snapshot_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'get snapshots' but doesn't explain what a snapshot includes, whether it's real-time or historical, or any rate limits or permissions. The lack of any behavioral traits beyond the action itself leaves significant ambiguity.

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 with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It doesn't mention what the snapshot contains, how it differs from crypto_get_snapshot, or anything about the response structure. An agent would likely need to infer or explore further, making it inadequate for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'symbols'. It doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'BTC-USD'), case sensitivity, or any constraints. With no param info in the description, it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gets snapshots for specified crypto symbols. The verb 'Get' and resource 'snapshots' are specific, and the tool name 'crypto_get_snapshot_all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stocks_get_snapshot_all' and 'crypto_get_snapshot'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its singular counterpart, so it loses a point.

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 like crypto_get_snapshot or stocks_get_snapshot_all. It only states what it does without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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