get_volume_ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should cover behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is real-time or delayed. The tool appears read-only but this is not explicitly stated. The description lacks transparency about behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a title, explanatory paragraph, and an 'Args' section listing parameters. It is moderately concise; every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., the example about Samsung/Hynix is helpful but slightly verbose), but overall it's 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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks context on error handling, data freshness, or edge cases (e.g., what happens when count exceeds max). For a simple ranking tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, meaning parameter details are absent in the schema. The description compensates fully: it explains market choices (KOSPI/KOSDAQ/ALL), count (default 50, max 500), and sort_by (volume as shares, trade_value as won). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 retrieves top stocks ranked by volume or trade value. It distinguishes between the two ranking criteria and uses specific verbs like '가져옵니다' (retrieves). The sibling tools include other rankings (get_change_ranking, get_market_cap_ranking), so this tool is uniquely for volume/trade value 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use sort_by='volume' vs 'trade_value', including a practical example for high-priced stocks. It explains that 'volume' defaults to number of shares and 'trade_value' to Korean won. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to other ranking tools beyond naming siblings.

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