get_stock_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behaviors. It states the tool analyzes OHLCV + technical indicators but does not disclose specific indicators, error handling, or data source. Output schema exists, reducing need for return details, but some traits remain opaque.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded.

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 (which covers return structure), the description sufficiently explains input parameters and core functionality. It could mention error handling or data freshness, but overall it is complete for a straightforward analysis tool.

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%, and the description compensates with clear explanations: ticker with examples (e.g., '347860' for Alchera) and days with default value (120). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/title.

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 analyzes OHLCV and technical indicators for a given stock code. It provides specific ticker examples for Korean stocks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_us_stock_analysis for US stocks.

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 implies usage for Korean stocks via examples (e.g., '005930' for Samsung) and sibling names suggest alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or any prerequisites.

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