get_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data is time-series candlestick data, notes the default count of 120 bars ≈ 6 months, and caps at 500 bars. It also clarifies that indicators are not included unless explicitly requested via a different tool. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states exactly what the tool returns. The usage guidance and parameter explanations are concise. The warning about get_multi_chart_stats is placed early. Minor redundancy exists (OHLCV is spelled out twice), and the emoji/formatting is slightly noisy, but every sentence 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 read-only chart tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, when to use it, how to route to alternatives, and all parameter semantics. The output schema presumably documents the return shape, so the description needn't explain it. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the tool is for Korean stocks (though the example code and Korean labels imply it), and the US alternative is mentioned but not fully elaborated.

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 must compensate. It does: code is explained as a 6-digit stock code with example '005930', timeframe is mapped to day/week/month with Korean labels, and count is explained as number of bars with default 120 ≈ 6 months and max 500. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't enumerate every possible value beyond the three timeframes.

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 candlestick OHLCV time-series data (open/high/low/close/volume) for a stock, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('chart'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_multi_chart_stats for period statistics and get_us_chart for US time-series, and mentions get_indicators for technical indicators. This is a specific, well-differentiated purpose.

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: use for queries like '삼성전자 일봉', '3개월 주봉', '월봉 데이터', 'price history'. It also gives a clear exclusion: if only period statistics for multiple stocks are needed, use get_multi_chart_stats instead. It even notes that technical indicators should only be fetched via get_indicators when explicitly requested. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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