get_exchange_alerts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the polling mechanism ('comparing market list changes every 60 seconds') and listing all alert types. No contradictions with annotations. Additional behavioral details beyond structured fields are provided.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured clearly. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters, the existence of an output schema, and annotations providing safety, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and use case. It sufficiently informs an agent about what to expect without missing critical context.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by explaining what alerts are detected and the polling frequency, which helps interpret the output. No parameters to document, but description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves Korean exchange alerts, listing specific types (new listings, delistings, investment warnings, caution flags). It provides sufficient detail about the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_movers or get_arbitrage_scanner, limiting clarity in distinguishing when to use this tool over others.

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 mentions 'Critical for risk management and early listing detection' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced, and context is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar tools.

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