usdt_krw_premium

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the definition: nothing about data freshness/recency, whether quotes are spot or averaged, failure behavior when a venue is unavailable, or any auth/rate considerations. It does clarify what the number actually means, which is the one genuine behavioral contribution.

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 definition is front-loaded with the concept before the args, and no sentence is padding. The 'Args:' block is slightly raw docstring formatting, but it is compact and readable.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: the metric, both venues, the benchmark and the parameter values are all present. The notable gaps are the absence of any time window/recency semantics and no differentiation from the korea_premium sibling.

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, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers, listing the three valid values (upbit | bithumb | both) and the default. It does not explain what 'both' returns structurally, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 specific metric (USDT-KRW premium), the venues it draws from (Upbit, Bithumb) and the benchmark (ECB reference rate), plus a plain-language gloss ('how far Korean dollar demand deviates from the official rate'). It never differentiates itself from the sibling korea_premium, which appears to cover overlapping territory, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the subject matter; there is no statement of when to call this versus korea_premium, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a single venue is preferable to 'both'. The '(default both)' note gives a hint about the common case but is not real guidance.

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