Get stock investor trading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that data is daily and limited to Korean stocks, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond the annotations, so it only partially enriches the annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and full schema coverage, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the response rows will contain (e.g., net buying amounts, volumes) or how pagination via 'count' works, leaving gaps for an agent expecting structured output. It is adequate for a basic read-only tool but not fully informing.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (count, until, symbol), including formats and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 daily Korean-stock trading trends for specific investor categories (retail, foreign, institutional, other). It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a clear resource, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or clarify when to use this tool over its sibling 'toss_get_market_investor_trading'. The only implicit hint is the 'stock' in the name, but no explicit usage context is given.

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