get_change_ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only indicates a fetch operation ('가져옵니다'), implying read-only access, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, potential side effects, or return format.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded, followed by example queries and parameter descriptions. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits details like time frame (e.g., daily change) and ordering behavior. It is adequate for basic use but lacks completeness for more nuanced queries.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: direction (up/down), market (KOSPI/KOSDAQ/ALL), and count (default 50, max 500). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 fetches stocks sorted by change rate (top/bottom) and provides example queries like '상한가 종목', '급등주', etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_market_cap_ranking and get_volume_ranking, which focus on different criteria.

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 concrete examples of when to use the tool (e.g., for questions about soaring stocks, top gainers). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context derived from sibling names and the tool's purpose implies appropriate usage.

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