get_futures_snapshot

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description implies data retrieval but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data 'snapshots' include. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get snapshots for futures contracts.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of 15 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, and the presence of an output schema (which may help with return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, usage scenarios, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in this context.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptive information about parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, such as 'ticker', 'product_code', or 'limit', leaving their semantics unclear. This gap is significant given the high parameter count and lack of schema support.

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 'Get snapshots for futures contracts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshots for futures contracts'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about what 'snapshots' entail (e.g., price data, market depth) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in comparison.

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. It does not mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker' that might serve similar purposes. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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