list_universal_snapshots

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' which implies a read operation, but does not cover critical aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, missing details on parameters, output, and behavioral context, which is inadequate for a tool of this 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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters (type, limit, order, params, sort, ticker_any_of) are documented in the schema. The description only hints at 'type' and 'multiple assets' (possibly related to ticker_any_of), but does not explain parameter meanings, expected formats, or interactions. It 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 states the tool 'Get universal snapshots for multiple assets of a specific type' which provides a basic verb+resource (get snapshots) and scope (multiple assets, specific type). However, it lacks specificity about what 'universal snapshots' are or how they differ from other snapshot-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_snapshot_all, get_snapshot_ticker), making it vague in distinguishing 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other snapshot or list tools in the sibling set. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools like get_snapshot_all or list_tickers.

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