여러 종목 일괄 시세 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It adds useful context (max 30 stocks, internal code, alert statuses in remarks) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor mention rate limits or error behaviors. A score of 3 is appropriate given the lack of annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and data fields, followed by usage guidance and a note about alert statuses. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields (price, change, volume, amount, market cap, remarks) and usage context. It could mention error handling or output formatting but is otherwise complete for a batch query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description repeats the parameter constraints (6-digit codes, 1-30 items) and provides an example. This adds no significant value beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it queries current price, change rate, volume, transaction amount, market cap, and alert statuses for multiple stocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_stock_price by explicitly recommending this tool for batch queries.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when needing quotes for 2+ stocks and to avoid repeated calls to get_stock_price. It implies not to use for single stocks but does not explicitly state the alternative, though it is clear enough for an agent.

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