get_snapshot_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get a snapshot' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly concise given the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from alternatives, leaving significant gaps for effective agent use.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (e.g., what 'market_type' values are valid, how 'tickers' interacts with 'all', what 'params' object contains, or the meaning of 'include_otc'). This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool 'Get a snapshot of all tickers in a market' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot of all tickers'), but it's vague about what a 'snapshot' entails (e.g., price data, volume, etc.). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_ticker' or 'list_universal_snapshots', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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 siblings like 'get_snapshot_ticker' (likely for single tickers) and 'list_universal_snapshots' (possibly broader), the description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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