get_market_snapshot

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of clarifying whether calling this tool mutates state. It does not state side effects, data freshness, pagination, or error behavior; it only lists informational content. The read-only nature is merely implied by the 'get' prefix and the word 'snapshot', not disclosed explicitly.

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 very short and front-loads 'Reglas oficiales', but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a well-formed sentence. It is concise without being wasted, yet it omits essential functional context, so it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does enumerate several response topics, which helps, but it fails to explain the slug value, the response shape, or whether the operation is safe. A simple tool still needs enough context for correct use; this falls short.

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?

The sole required parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions slug, its meaning, acceptable formats, or examples. An agent cannot determine from this definition what identifier must be passed. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the bare property name.

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 names specific content categories — official rules, resolution source, close, Up/Down books, and current commissions — which makes the intended output clear beyond the tool name. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'retrieves', so it is not a full sentence, but the resource is recognizable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_market_context, so no differentiation credit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings such as get_market_context, get_price_history, or discover_markets. The content list implies a market-snapshot use case, but no exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided. An agent is left to infer when this is the right endpoint.

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