get_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the data content (OHLCV candles), count limits (default 120, max 500), timeframe options, and clarifies that indicators are handled by a different tool. It does not go deeper into edge behavior, but the output schema exists and the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 well-organized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by usage guidance and an Args section. It is slightly repetitive ("캔들차트 OHLCV" appears alongside "candlestick OHLCV" in the same sentence), but overall every major part earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter chart tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, limits, and sibling-tool boundaries. An agent has enough information to select and correctly invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: code format with an example, timeframe valid values with Korean mappings, and count default/maximum semantics. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 identifies the tool as returning OHLCV candlestick time-series data for a single ticker, listing exact fields (시가/고가/저가/종가/거래량). It gives concrete query examples and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_multi_chart_stats and get_us_chart, so an agent can tell which chart tool to use.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with example phrases like "삼성전자 일봉" and "price history". It also names alternatives for other cases: get_multi_chart_stats for multi-stock period stats, get_us_chart for US time-series, and get_indicators when technical indicators are explicitly requested.

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