get_market_cap_ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals defaults (market='KOSPI', count=50), maximum count (500), and unsupported value (ALL). This is adequate for a simple read tool. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 very concise: a purpose line followed by usage hints and parameter details. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and key constraints.

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 presence of an output schema (coverage of return values not needed), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter details, constraints (ALL unsupported), and defaults. The sibling tools are numerous but this tool's niche (market cap ranking) is clearly defined, making it complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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. It explains the market parameter as accepting 'KOSPI' or 'KOSDAQ' with a default of 'KOSPI' and notes 'ALL' is unsupported. For count, it specifies default 50 and maximum 500. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default 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 states that the tool retrieves top market capitalization stocks, using the verb '가져옵니다' (brings) and specifies the resource as '시가총액 상위 종목'. It provides usage examples ('대형주', '시가총액 TOP', '코스피 대장주') that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_change_ranking or get_volume_ranking.

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 includes example queries indicating appropriate use cases. It also explicitly states that the market parameter does not support 'ALL', which is a constraint. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.

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