Get stock rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful context by defining the return type as a leaderboard and clarifying the scope (screening today's activity). It doesn't contradict annotations and enriches behavioral understanding beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second provides a crucial contrast with a sibling tool. No redundant or filler content.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential context: it returns a leaderboard, covers specific markets and metrics, and directs alternative usage appropriately. The lack of output schema is partially offset by the clear 'leaderboard' description, but some details (e.g., sorting direction or exact return structure) are left to inference.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of 'traded value, traded volume, or price change' maps to the type enum but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ranks Korean or US stocks by specific metrics (traded value, volume, price change) for screening. It explicitly distinguishes itself from toss_get_price by clarifying it returns a leaderboard, not data about a specific stock.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'for screening what is active today' and directly names the alternative (toss_get_price) for when a user already picked a stock. This is clear when-to-use and 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.