get_price

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 agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context beyond annotations: it's a snapshot (not a time series), and for NXT-listed stocks, it shows KRX regular market as default with NXT as a separate block, not mixing the two markets. This is useful but not exhaustive; it doesn't mention data freshness, delay, or exact return format, though an output schema exists.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The exclusions are placed early, which is helpful. However, it includes some redundancy: the NXT explanation is a bit verbose, and the example could be trimmed. Still, it's efficient overall, with no wasted sentences.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the key aspects: single stock, snapshot nature, and the NXT market handling. The main gap is not specifying how to interpret the output, but that's covered by the output schema. It could also mention that it's for Korean stocks explicitly, but the example and NXT context make it inferable.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter (code) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema itself provides no description for what 'code' means. The description compensates by explaining the parameter: '종목코드 6자리 (예: "005930")' (6-digit stock code, e.g., '005930'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'code' property, which is great for a single-parameter tool.

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's purpose: retrieving a current market snapshot (today's OHLC + volume) for a single stock. It specifies the resource (stock price) and the verb (get), and it differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that multi-stock queries should use get_multi_stocks and historical queries should use get_chart. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for Korean stocks, though the example (005930) and NXT context imply it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: for queries like 'What is Samsung Electronics' current price?' It also clearly states exclusions: if multiple stocks, use get_multi_stocks; if historical data needed, use get_chart. This is a strong usage guideline, directing the agent away from inappropriate uses.

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