get_event_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses date handling (shifts to next trading day) and states it does not assert causation or trading signals. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 summary line, usage context, and a bulleted parameter list. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. It could be more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 the input side, the description is comprehensive: it covers all parameters, defaults, and usage context. Since an output schema exists (not provided), the lack of output description is acceptable. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and limitations.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: code (6-digit stock code), event_date (format YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD, recommended from DartLens), before (default 5, max 60), and after (default 20, max 60). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 the tool aligns price, volume, and flow reactions around a specific event date. It specifies the verb '정렬합니다' (sorts/aligns) and the resource (event reaction). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing DartLens tools for input, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar get_* tools like get_price or get_flow.

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 explains when to use: after obtaining disclosure acceptance dates from DartLens tools. It advises that if event_date is a non-trading day, the next trading day is used. It also cautions that the tool is for time alignment, not for concluding cause or buy/sell decisions. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives among sibling tools.

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