market_signal_snapshot

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

Annotations already establish read-only safety and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting partial collection, context-change reporting, and exclusion of external news/sentiment providers. No annotation contradiction is present, though 'context changes' remains somewhat vague.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant or filler content. Every clause contributes either function or scope.

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 annotations covering safety and schema covering both optional parameters, the description is serviceable for invocation. However, because there is no output schema, its brief mention of partial collection and context changes does not fully describe what the snapshot returns, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 target_id and expected_layout_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('combine') and resources ('current loaded candle', 'native Data Window study values'), making the core purpose clear. It implies differentiation from tools like data_get_study_values or chart_get_state, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as data_get_study_values or market_technical_summary. The only boundary given is negative ('does not call outside news or sentiment providers'), which constrains scope but does not help select the tool.

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