get_market_indicator_candles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving candle charts but omits key traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the 'before' parameter), data range limits, or whether results are historical only. The description does not adequately compensate for missing 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 is a single concise sentence, but it is too minimal to provide sufficient context. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections) and very limited information reduce its utility. Every word is used, but the sentence fails to earn its place due to insufficient content.

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 4 parameters (2 required, with enum and pagination), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the response format, the meaning of 'candles' for market indicators, or how pagination works. The agent would need to infer many details, making it insufficient for reliable usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline score. It does not explain usage patterns or constraints beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 '시장 지표 캔들 차트 조회' clearly indicates it retrieves candle chart data for market indicators. The name distinguishes it from get_candles (likely for individual stocks) and get_market_indicator_prices (price series), but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from these siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_candles or get_market_indicator_prices. It lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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