get_ticker_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the snapshot is 'canonical' and 'compact', and lists the metric categories included. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the nature of the output, though it does not mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a brief but useful explanation of the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists) and the lack of annotations, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the tool's role as a starting point and highlights key output contents. It could slightly extend by explicitly noting it is a safe read operation, but the verb and content list already imply this. Overall, a solid description for a straightforward getter.

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. It explains the 'include' parameter as a comma-separated list of add-ons with an example ('call_diag'), adding real semantic value. The 'ticker' parameter is self-evident from its name and type, and the description reinforces it by referencing 'a ticker'.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'canonical compact state snapshot for a ticker', and enumerates the contents (price, gamma regime, IV rank, key positioning metrics). It also distinguishes itself as 'the default starting point for analysis', separating it from siblings like get_signals or get_market_structure.

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 phrase 'default starting point for analysis' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also explains the optional 'include' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives, so it lacks full exclusions.

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