Get Market Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the exact data included, units (CAD/MWh and MW), and timezone (America/Edmonton). This provides value beyond the annotations and gives the agent expectations for the returned data without over-explaining.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('cohesive current-state view') and then lists the included data and essential metadata (units, timezone). Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. It is both concise and informative.

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 parameterless, read-only snapshot tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It identifies what data is returned, the units, and the timezone, which are the only contextual details an agent needs to decide to call and interpret its result. No additional prerequisites, side effects, or environmental dependencies are relevant given the annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default and there is nothing to describe. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the tool is parameterless and the description correctly focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('cohesive current-state view of the Alberta electricity market') and enumerates the included data fields (pool price, system marginal price, load, generation, interchange, reserves). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools which handle individual data streams (e.g., get_pool_prices, get_load), making it obvious this is a composite snapshot.

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 implies usage for a consolidated market overview ('cohesive current-state view') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual getters or when not to use it. However, given the sibling set, the intent is clear enough that an agent would understand to use this when a high-level snapshot is needed. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given, but the context is sufficient.

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