recommend_buys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each entry includes a transparent scoreBreakdown and Korean rationale, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss side effects, but given the nature, it is reasonably transparent.

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, starting with a clear purpose sentence, then providing details in a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague statements.

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 complexity as a composite, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output structure. An output schema exists to explain return values. Missing elements like rate limits or error handling are minor, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 compensate. The Args section explains market (enum), top_n (range 1-10), and criteria (optional override with fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though details of criteria fields could be more explicit.

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 it is a composite buy-recommendation tool that combines top gainers, quotes, news positivity, and fundamentals into a ranked list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fundamentals or get_top_gainers which are single-purpose.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The composite nature implies it for recommendations, but no clear exclusions or conditions.

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