get_change_ranking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by documenting parameter defaults (count default 50 max 500, market default ALL) in the args block, which sets expectations for call behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by trigger examples, then a compact structured args block. Every line earns its place — no filler. The Korean language matches the target user queries naturally.

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?

For a 3-parameter ranking tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: all parameters documented with values and defaults, usage triggers given, and output format is covered by the schema. Minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation in the description itself, but purpose clarity already handles that.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. All three parameters are documented with allowed values and defaults: direction (up/down), market (KOSPI/KOSDAQ/ALL with default), count (default 50, max 500). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: '등락률순위 — 등락률 상위/하위 종목을 가져옵니다' (change-rate ranking — fetches top/bottom change-rate stocks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling ranking tools like get_volume_ranking and get_market_cap_ranking by focusing on change rate. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides concrete usage context with example queries: '상한가 종목', '급등주', '급락주', '상승률 상위' 같은 질문에 사용합니다 (used for questions like limit-up, surge stocks, sharp declines, top gainers). This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming sibling alternatives or explicit exclusions.

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