price_bands

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: missing fields are reported as null and named in `missing`, never as zero, because zero is a real value for foreign net flow. It also explains the semantic meaning of ARA and ARB, which helps an agent interpret results correctly. This is exactly the kind of nuance annotations do not convey.

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?

Three compact sentences: the definition comes first, an illustrative ARA/ARB interpretatoin sentence second, and the null-vs-zero caveat last. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete and explains the key behavioral gotchas. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape, but it discloses the most important missing-field behavior and where the data comes from.

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 input schema already documents the single `symbol` parameter as 'IDX ticker, e.g. BBRI' with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the data is per-stock.

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 identifies the resource: IDX ARA/ARB auto-rejection bands plus the session's foreign flow for a stock. It is specific and meaningful, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It also only indirectly distinguishes itself from the orderbook sibling by noting the data comes from the orderbook response.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to access ARA/ARB and foreign flow data for a stock, and notes that these fields already arrive inside the orderbook response at no extra request cost. It does not explicitly state when to prefer price_bands over orderbook or list exclusions, but the context is still strong.

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