korea_premium

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the returned fields, including trade staleness and the three premium computations, which signals this is a read-only analytical snapshot. It omits operational behavior: rate limits, whether the OKX reference is fetched live or cached, and what happens when an asset is unavailable on one venue.

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 summary line leads, followed by a compact three-line Args block, with no filler sentences. Every line carries either output semantics or parameter semantics. Nothing is redundant with what the reader needs to decide whether to call the tool.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema present, this is close to complete: the caller knows what comes back and how to shape the query. The remaining gaps are interpretive (how to read prem_fx and prem_vs_btc, when to prefer this over usdt_krw_premium), which are minor at this complexity level.

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 schema has no enum on venue, so the description is doing real work: it spells out the accepted values 'upbit | bithumb | both' (with the default), explains asset is an optional single symbol like BTC, and defines limit as max rows with default 20. That is meaningfully more than the schema conveys. It stops short of saying whether the limit applies per venue or across the combined result.

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 names a concrete verb-resource pairing ('Korea premium snapshot') and enumerates exactly what is reported per asset: KRW price on Upbit/Bithumb, the OKX USDT reference, trade staleness, and three named premiums (prem_usdt, prem_vs_btc, prem_fx). It is a specific and informative purpose statement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling usdt_krw_premium, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite a closely related sibling (usdt_krw_premium). The word 'snapshot' hints that this is a point-in-time cross-venue comparison, but the agent must infer that. The Args block documents parameters, not usage conditions.

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