market_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. 'Read' and 'mock' convey that this is a non-destructive, non-production data operation, which is useful. However, it does not explain normalization rules, whether the quote is current/last available, error behavior, or any other operational trait, and no annotations compensate.

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 with no filler; every word contributes. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter read operation, though terse.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the core call shape is clear, but there is no usage guidance, no caveats, and no explanation of the 'normalized' aspect. The missing usage context and parameter semantics leave the agent to guess when and how to invoke this over alternatives.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'symbol', with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explicit parameter explanation. The phrase 'market-data quote' only weakly implies that symbol identifies the instrument. A format or example would be needed to reach the low-coverage compensation bar.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('normalized mock market-data quote'), so an agent can tell this is the market-data retrieval tool. Among siblings (generate_alpha_signal, validate_order, submit_paper_order, trip_risk_circuit_breaker), it uniquely reads a quote rather than generating, validating, submitting, or tripping something.

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 gives no explicit condition for use, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative sibling. It only states what the tool does; the agent must infer when to pick it. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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