get_kimchi_premium

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing pricing, payment method, and return fields. No contradictions, and it enriches the behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 includes useful but somewhat verbose details (pricing, payment, docs link). It is structured with bullet points but could be more concise by moving some payment details elsewhere. Still informative.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description is remarkably complete: it explains the concept, lists all return fields, and provides payment and documentation links. No output schema is provided, but the description fully covers return values.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameter (symbol) is well-documented in the schema. The description only adds an example (BTC) and slight context, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving the real-time Kimchi Premium, defined as the price difference between Korean and global exchanges. It provides context (South Korea's trading volume) and distinctively focuses on this specific metric, differentiating it from siblings like get_global_vs_korea_divergence.

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 gives context on what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_stablecoin_premium or get_global_vs_korea_divergence. Usage is implied for Kimchi Premium queries, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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