Get index investor trading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond the title—'value trends' and the market scope—but does not disclose return format, pagination, or default behavior, which would strengthen transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it easy to parse.

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 and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse for a data-retrieval tool. It does not mention what a 'trend' response looks like, how count/until affect results, or when to prefer a sibling tool, leaving important context missing.

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 only 25% (only 'until' is described). The description does not compensate by explaining count, interval, or how they shape the returned trends. While enum values hint at meaning, the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 'Returns investor trading value trends for KOSPI or KOSDAQ' uses a specific verb and names the exact resource and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling toss_get_stock_investor_trading tool by identifying market indices rather than individual stocks.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the market scope (KOSPI/KOSDAQ), but does not mention the stock-level sibling or any conditions for choosing this tool.

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