get_snapshot_crypto_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool gets a snapshot but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the snapshot includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one required, one optional), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'crypto ticker' but doesn't explain what 'ticker' means (e.g., symbol format like BTC-USD) or what 'params' is for (e.g., optional filters or settings). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the action ('Get snapshot') and resource ('crypto ticker's order book'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' or 'get_snapshot_ticker', which appear to be related snapshot tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 many sibling tools like 'get_snapshot_all' and 'get_snapshot_ticker', the description lacks any context about when this specific crypto order book snapshot is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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