get_stock_trade_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool makes one KRX API call per base date, implying rate limits and potential latency. However, it does not mention whether data is real-time, delayed, or historical, nor does it discuss authentication, error handling, or idempotency. For a read operation, the per-date call is useful, but other behaviors are missing, making the transparency mediocre.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose stated first, followed by filtering behavior, then the API call pattern. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains inputs and a key behavioral note (per-date API call), but it does not describe the output format or return structure. For a data-retrieval tool, missing output information (e.g., structure of the response) is a gap. However, the tool name implies the returned data fields, so it is minimally complete but not robust.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that only stocks in codeList are extracted and that basDdList drives per-day API calls, which provides context beyond the schema's field definitions. However, the schema already describes the parameters' purposes adequately (market type, array of codes, array of dates), so the added value is modest.

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 provides trade information (closing price, change rate, open, high, low, volume, amount, market cap, listed shares) for stocks listed on KOSPI, KOSDAQ, KONEX. The verb 'provides' and specific data fields make the purpose unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_stock_base_info likely provides basic stock info, not trade data), so the tool differentiates itself in context.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use this tool when needing trade data for specific dates and stock codes, and that a separate API call is made per date. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives; for example, it doesn't mention that get_stock_base_info might be better for non-trade data like listing dates. Without clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use, the guidelines are adequate but not strong.

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