get_snapshot_all

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a read operation with 'Get'). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, data freshness, or what 'snapshot' includes (e.g., real-time vs. historical data). With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description provides minimal additional value.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and usage context, but annotations provide some safety info. This results in a minimally viable but gap-filled description.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'market' but does not explain the four parameters (market_type, tickers, include_otc, params) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get a snapshot of all tickers in a market,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot of all tickers'), but lacks detail on what a 'snapshot' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'get_snapshot_ticker' or 'list_universal_snapshots.' This makes it minimally adequate but not specific enough for full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it compares to 'get_snapshot_ticker' (single ticker) or 'list_universal_snapshots' (broader scope). This 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.