show_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool only provides historical trajectory and is not suitable for forward-looking projections. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only status or mention authentication requirements, which would be beneficial but not critical given the context.

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 well-structured: a concise two-sentence overview of functionality followed by a focused cautionary paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the important usage guidance is highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'.

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 no output schema, the description implies return types but does not specify exact fields or pagination. It covers the main functionality and critical usage warnings thoroughly. Slight deduction for lack of return format details, but overall sufficient for a query tool with simple parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how the ticker parameter alters the output type (total vs. per-holding), but does not add new information about from/to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and distinguishes between two modes: without ticker returns daily total market value, with ticker returns per-holding time series. This specificity differentiates it from siblings 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 this tool alone is insufficient for projections or goal-timeline questions, and provides detailed guidance on when to use it and which other tools (e.g., get_brief) and data fields to combine. It also cautions against linear extrapolation, giving clear usage boundaries.

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