get_indicators_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains it performs parallel judgment, returns only aggregate values (not time series), and has a 100-stock limit. It warns about visualization needs. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the behavior is clearly non-destructive and read-only.

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 two concise sentences plus a bullet list. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (purpose, warning, alternative). No unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, parameter details, and references sibling tools for more detail. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It describes each parameter: codes (stock list, max 100), days (default 260), include (default list, references get_indicators), timeframe (enumerated values), params (override, common to all). This adds meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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 it evaluates indicators for multiple stocks (up to 100) in parallel, and distinguishes itself from 'get_indicators' (single stock, repeated calls) and 'get_chart' (visualization). The term '기술지표벌크' and '스크리닝 핵심' reinforce its 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 advises using this tool instead of calling 'get_indicators' multiple times, and notes that for time series or candles, 'get_chart' should be used. It implicitly guides toward screening scenarios. However, it does not explicitly list all cases when to avoid this tool.

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