Crypto snapshots

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the 'latest state' is returned and that change is derived, which is useful context. But it doesn't clarify timing/staleness characteristics or that one ticker per pair is returned.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates return fields without waste. The parenthetical '(fraction)' is a useful precision note. Slightly list-heavy but efficient.

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?

For a read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description does a reasonable job listing returned fields. But without an output schema, the field list is prose-only and lacks structure; and the relationship to sibling tools that cover subsets is unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the tickers parameter is well-documented in the schema (BASE/QUOTE format, 1-200 range). The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (crypto pair snapshots) and enumerates the fields returned (last trade, bid/ask, minute close, OHLCV, VWAP, change). It's clear what the tool provides. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from very similarly-named siblings like crypto_latest_trades, crypto_latest_quotes, or market_snapshots.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives. With siblings like crypto_latest_trades, crypto_latest_quotes, and crypto_orderbooks that cover subsets of what this tool aggregates, the description should explain that this is a consolidated single-call snapshot. It does not.

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