get_multi_chart_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only aggregate values, not time series, and provides field details. It mentions parallel execution and a max of 100 codes. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or authentication.

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 bullet points, warning, and examples. It is informative without being overly verbose. A slight deduction for using multiple languages but still efficient.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description still explains return fields in detail. It covers filtering use cases, distinguishes from siblings, and provides default values. Comprehensive for this bulk stats 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 has 0% description coverage; the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: codes (list, max 100), days (default 260 = 52 weeks), and provides usage examples. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 fetches aggregate statistics (high/low/current/drawdown) for multiple stocks in parallel. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool get_chart, which provides time series data.

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 usage guidance: it is essential for screening, should be used instead of multiple get_chart calls, and includes concrete examples (e.g., '52주 고점 대비 30% 이상 하락한 종목'). It also warns not to use for time series.

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