Get market indicator prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a meaningful constraint that symbols must be 'documented' (i.e., valid indicator symbols), which hints at validation behavior. It does not describe error handling, response format, or other runtime behavior, but for a simple read tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second gives a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what input it expects, and a key constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most expected scenarios.

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% at the property level, so the description must compensate. It explains that the symbols parameter refers to market indicators and must contain 'documented' symbols, adding semantics beyond the raw schema. The schema's item descriptions already cover code formats (Korean 6-digit or US ticker) and the resolve_symbol prerequisite, so the description adds the indicator-specific context that was missing.

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 tool returns current prices for market indicators, naming specific examples like KOSPI and KOSDAQ. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_get_price (for individual stocks) and toss_get_market_indicator_candles (historical data).

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 provides clear usage context: pass one or more documented indicator symbols to get current prices. It also includes a symbol-resolution prerequisite through the schema. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like toss_get_market_indicator_candles or toss_get_price, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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