fq_get_equity_snapshot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 very short (one sentence fragment) and front-loaded with key terms, but it is too terse and lacks structure. While no words are wasted, the brevity sacrifices informativeness, making it concise but not adequately helpful.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the tool has 5 parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not mention pagination (limit/offset) or date handling (as_of_date). The context is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description fails to explain the five parameters (limit, offset, metrics, tickers, as_of_date). It only hints at possible metric values (pe/pb, market_cap), leaving the agent to infer parameter usage, which is insufficient.

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 specifies the resource (equity snapshot) and lists example metrics (PE/PB, market cap, liquidity, foreign room), making the purpose clear. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like fq_get_financial_ratios or fq_get_valuation_timeseries, so it could be more distinct.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for historical data use fq_get_valuation_timeseries), leaving the agent without context for selecting among siblings.

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