get_us_chart

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that prepost is only valid for intraday intervals and limit constraints. It implies read-only data retrieval but does not detail other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness.

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 well-structured: one-line summary, example queries, sibling note, then argument list with clear formatting. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 and the tool's straightforward purpose (OHLCV data), the description covers parameters and usage context well. Some edge cases (valid period-interval combinations) are not addressed, but overall adequate.

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 description compensates fully. It documents all 5 parameters with meanings, allowed values (for period and interval), defaults, and constraints (prepost intraday only, limit max 5000). This adds significant value.

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 provides US stock chart OHLCV historical data, with example queries like 'AAPL 차트'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_chart' for Korean market.

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 gives explicit examples of when to use (US stock queries) and distinguishes from get_chart for Korea. It also recommends export_us_to_excel for large data. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like get_us_price for non-chart data.

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