kis_get_domestic_stock_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions OHLCV data, period types, and default date behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether it is read-only, error handling for invalid stock codes, rate limits, pagination, or data limits. The coverage is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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 Korean sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. While very brief, every part adds value and there is no superfluous text. Could be slightly more structured but remains effective.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to describe the return format, order of data points, or any constraints on date ranges. Without an output schema, the agent has no information on what the response structure looks like, limiting its ability to interpret results properly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline meaning for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that date range is implicit and that omitting dates returns recent data—information not explicit in the schema. It also reinforces the period meanings. Thus, it adds meaningful context beyond the structured schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving OHLCV data for domestic stocks with period granularity (daily/weekly/monthly/yearly) and date range. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource 'domestic stock chart' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool kis_get_domestic_stock_price, which likely returns simpler data, missing a chance to clarify 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 provides a usage hint: '날짜 미지정 시 최근 데이터 반환' (returns recent data if date not specified), indicating when to omit date parameters. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kis_get_domestic_stock_price or kis_get_overseas_stock_chart, nor any exclusion conditions.

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