Get order book

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: asks are ascending by price, bids descending, arrays may be empty outside trading hours, and unknown symbols produce a 404 stock-not-found error. This lets the agent anticipate output shape and failure modes.

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 well structured with a front-loaded purpose, a usage sentence, an Args block, a Returns block, and an Errors line. It is compact and information-dense, with no irrelevant digressions; the duplication of schema details is presented efficiently enough to keep the description self-contained.

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 read-only order-book lookup with rich annotations and a full schema, the description covers the operational context, return semantics, ordering guarantees, empty-case behavior, and error handling. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline applies. The description repeats the symbol format and response_format options but adds no new meaning beyond what the JSON schema already documents; the schema already explains KRX/US formats, the enum, and the default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get the current bid/ask ladder (호가) for one stock' — and explicitly distinguishes itself from tossinvest_get_prices, which returns the single last-traded price. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('to judge liquidity and spread before choosing a limit price') and names the alternative with a concrete selection criterion: use tossinvest_get_prices for a single last-traded price because it is cheaper and supports batching. This gives clear routing guidance.

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