get_price_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates a read-only 'Get' action and the 'today's' temporal scope, which is helpful. But it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or data-source details, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is compact. The Korean parenthetical is mildly redundant for an English interface but does not hurt clarity.

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 single-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives the query scope, symbol format, and a concrete example. It does not explicitly route users away from sibling price tools, but that is not required for correct invocation.

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 provides the parameter name and type, so the description's Args section adds essential meaning: 'single ticker symbol, no market prefix, e.g. 005930.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 specific action: getting today's upper/lower price limits for a single symbol. The resource, price limits, is distinct from sibling tools like get_current_price and get_orderbook, so an agent can identify what this tool does.

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 usage context: it is for a single symbol's daily price limits. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is useful but mostly implicit.

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