Get current price

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the accepted formats for Korean and US symbols, and notes that both can be mixed in a single call. This is useful information for the agent to form correct requests, though it does not describe the output format or any error handling.

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 compact: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then format rules, then a prerequisite alternative. No redundant or generic phrases are present.

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?

Given that this is a simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, valid input formats, mixing behavior, and an important prerequisite step. It doesn't state the return structure explicitly, but 'Fetches current prices' strongly implies the return value. Slightly more detail on the response shape would make it fully complete.

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 schema only provides an example ('['005930', 'NVDA']') and minimal description. The tool description enriches this by explicitly stating the Korean/US code convention and that mixing is allowed. This is meaningful additional meaning that helps the agent populate the 'symbols' parameter correctly, going beyond the schema's baseline.

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 begins with 'Fetches current prices from Toss Securities', which clearly states the verb and resource. It also explains the symbol format (Korean 6-digit codes vs US tickers), effectively distinguishing this from sibling tools like toss_get_candles or toss_get_orderbook by focusing on 'current prices'.

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 for when to use the tool (when you have Korean codes or US tickers and need current prices) and explicitly points to an alternative: 'If you only know the company name, call toss_resolve_symbol first.' However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or contrast with sibling tools that might also return price-related data, so it stops short of being fully explicit.

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