현재가 조회

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior: it supports up to 200 comma-separated symbols and returns an array with symbol, timestamp, lastPrice, and currency. It doesn't describe error handling, but that's not required given the 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 efficient: a one-sentence purpose, then a structured Args/Returns breakdown. It is slightly redundant with the schema's parameter description, but keeps the overall length appropriate.

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 read-only batch price tool, the description is complete: it covers the input format (comma-separated symbols, max 200), includes examples, and details the return fields. This compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 already documents the single parameter 'symbols' with full coverage. The description's Args section repeats the same information as the schema description, so it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's function with a specific verb (조회) and resource (여러 종목의 현재가), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on batch current-price queries rather than orderbooks, trades, or candles.

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 context is clear: this is for fetching current prices for multiple symbols at once, with a maximum of 200 symbols. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools cover different data types, the usage context is unambiguous.

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