telegram_buzz_score

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It describes the computation (independent mention, tier, spread, velocity) and filters but does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or has side effects. The context implies a read operation, but a more explicit statement would improve transparency.

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: a one-line definition, a usage note, then an organized list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 that an output schema exists (context indicates it has output schema), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and all parameters. However, it could mention that the output is a list of stocks with scores, but the output schema likely covers this, so a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all 6 parameters. The Args section provides clear, concise explanations for each parameter (window_hours, only_types, exclude_gossip, sentiment, top, kind), adding meaning beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 computes a buzz score per stock using independent mentions, tier, spread, and velocity, and explicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_search for macro/geopolitical/theme queries. The verb '종목별 종합 버즈 스코어' specifies the action and resource.

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 explicitly states it is for stock code matching and directs macro/geopolitical/theme questions to telegram_search, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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