get_current_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state key behaviors: returns current last-traded price, supports batching up to 200 symbols, and requires symbols without market prefixes. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling for invalid symbols, whether prices are delayed, or how multiple symbols map to the response.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by a short Args block. The Korean translation '(현재가 조회)' is somewhat redundant for an English-facing definition but does not introduce confusion. Overall, each part earns its place with no significant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the parameter format, limits, and examples. It does not explain output structure or explicitly route to alternatives, but the output schema covers return values and the tool complexity is low. A brief sibling reference would have made it fully complete.

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 only defines 'symbols' as a required string with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly how to format the parameter: comma-separated, up to 200, no market prefix, with concrete examples like '005930,000660' and 'AAPL,MSFT'. This is precisely the information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Get', clearly identifies the resource as 'current (last-traded) price', and scopes it to 'one or more symbols'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_orderbook, get_candles, and get_recent_trades by emphasizing the last-traded price aspect. Concrete KRX and US examples reinforce the resource scope.

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 useful input constraints — comma-separated, up to 200 symbols, no market prefix — but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_orderbook or get_candles. The usage context is implied by 'current (last-traded) price' rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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