get_snapshot_crypto_book

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this (it describes a 'Get' action). However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover - it specifies the resource type (crypto order book) but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'snapshot' in this context. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds some value but not 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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information. This is an example of appropriate brevity for a simple tool.

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 that annotations cover the read-only nature and there's an output schema (so return values don't need description), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage and multiple similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and tool differentiation. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in a competitive toolset environment.

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%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'crypto ticker' which helps explain the 'ticker' parameter, but provides no information about the 'params' parameter (what it accepts, its purpose, or why it can be null). With 0% schema coverage and 2 parameters, the description should do more to compensate but only partially addresses one parameter.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get snapshot') and resource ('crypto ticker's order book'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_ticker', or 'get_futures_snapshot', which appear to be related snapshot operations. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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. With multiple snapshot-related siblings (get_snapshot_all, get_snapshot_ticker, get_futures_snapshot, get_snapshot_option, get_snapshot_direction), there's no indication of when this crypto-specific order book snapshot is appropriate versus other snapshot tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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