show_snapshot

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it only returns historical trajectory and warns against linear extrapolation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, though these are less critical for a query tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds critical usage guidance. It is slightly lengthy due to the important warning, but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but structure is effective.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the two output modes sufficiently. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what data it returns and its limitations. For a tool with no output schema and two modes, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the ticker parameter changes the output (total vs. per-holding). This helps the agent infer behavior from parameter presence.

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 it queries portfolio snapshot history with two distinct modes: without ticker returns daily total market value, with ticker returns per-holding time series. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_balance or show_portfolio.

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 explicitly warns that the tool alone is insufficient for projections and provides clear alternatives: call get_brief and use risk_summary fields. It tells the agent when not to use it and what to do instead.

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