get_snapshot_ticker

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't specify what data the snapshot includes, whether it's real-time or historical, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for such a brief statement.

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 (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no title, and many siblings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify parameter usage, differentiate from siblings, or provide context needed for effective tool invocation, relying too heavily on the output schema without addressing input ambiguities.

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 'ticker' but doesn't explain the three parameters (market_type, ticker, params) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving parameters largely undocumented and unclear in meaning.

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 action ('Get snapshot') and target resource ('for a specific ticker'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_crypto_book', or 'get_snapshot_option', leaving ambiguity about what type of snapshot this retrieves versus others. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity needed for sibling 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. With many sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' (for all snapshots) and 'get_snapshot_option' (for options), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. 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.