get_chart

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns OHLCV data and has a default count, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Acceptable but not fully transparent.

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-structured with a clear first line, examples, usage rules, and Args. It is front-loaded with core purpose. Slightly long but not verbose; all sentences earn their 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?

Given the complexity of charting and sibling tools, the description covers the main aspects: data retrieval, default behavior, and usage constraints. Output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. Lacks mention of error conditions but is adequate.

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 description includes an Args section explaining each parameter: code (6-digit example), timeframe (day/week/month with Korean terms), and count (default 120, max 500). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which has no 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves candlestick OHLCV data for a stock's time series, providing examples and specifying it's the only entry point for chart visualization. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_us_chart and get_price.

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 explicitly says when to use (for chart visualization, only this tool) and when not to use (do not overlay indicators unless requested, use get_indicators for numbers). It provides clear context and alternatives.

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