get_price_limits

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get'), but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., symbols with no price limits) or specifics about the returned data structure. The description is not misleading, but it adds little beyond the basic action.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and object. No superfluous words or sections, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it specifies what is returned (upper/lower limits) and the input. However, it does not clarify market context (e.g., KR vs US) or whether limits are for the current trading day, which could be ambiguous given the international sibling tools.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description of the 'symbol' parameter as 'Stock symbol'. The tool description only repeats 'for a symbol', adding no further semantic detail. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 upper/lower price limits for a symbol, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('price limits'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, which serve different data needs.

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 implies when to use it (when needing price limits) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that other tools like get_prices are for different data, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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