trading_price_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what fields the price board returns, whether data is delayed vs live, whether it supports global markets or only VN exchange, or rate limits/limits on symbol count. For a real-time financial data tool with zero annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately terse, though it could arguably add a bit more value while staying concise.

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?

The tool is fairly simple (2 params, simple types, no enums) and has an output schema, so the description carries a moderate burden. However, it doesn't mention the source param's existence, market scope, or real-time caveats (e.g., live exchange hours). Given the output schema covers return structure, the description is adequate but thin for a real-time data 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which documents the source (VCI or KBS with default) and symbols format. The description's 'multiple stocks' echoes the symbols param's comma-separated format, adding marginal value at best.

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 'Get real-time price board for multiple stocks' has a clear verb+resource (get/price board) and specifies multiple stocks scope. It's clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from trading_price_depth or trading_intraday siblings beyond the real-time board concept.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. Among siblings like stock_price_depth, stock_intraday, and stock_history, there's no guidance on choosing the real-time price board. Usage context is implied (real-time board for multiple symbols) but no exclusions or alternatives are referenced.

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