get_snapshot_option

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it implies a read operation with 'Get'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies the target is an 'option contract' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what data the snapshot includes. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose 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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values or safety. However, with 3 parameters (2 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'option contract' and implies 'underlying_asset' but does not explain what these parameters mean (e.g., format, examples) or the purpose of 'params'. It adds some semantics but insufficiently compensates for the coverage gap.

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 'Get snapshot for a specific option contract', which provides a basic verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot for a specific option contract'). However, it lacks specificity about what a 'snapshot' entails (e.g., current market data, pricing details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', making it vague in context.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_snapshot_all' (for all snapshots) or 'get_futures_snapshot' (for futures), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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