get_snapshot_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It does not disclose if this is a read/write operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, timestamps). The phrase 'Get' implies a read operation, but lacks details on data freshness or side effects.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get gainers or losers for a market.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, making it inadequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 provides no information about the 4 parameters (direction, include_otc, market_type, params). It does not explain what values 'direction' accepts (e.g., 'gainers' vs 'losers'), what 'market_type' refers to, or the purpose of 'params'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get gainers or losers for a market' states a vague purpose without specifying what 'gainers or losers' means (e.g., stocks, assets, price movements) or what 'snapshot' entails. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'get_snapshot_all' by implying direction-based filtering, but lacks specificity about the resource or data format.

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 (e.g., 'get_snapshot_all', 'get_snapshot_ticker'), the description fails to indicate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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