get_price_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical behavior that US stocks return null, and implies that it returns both upper and lower limits. This goes beyond mere tautology or schema repetition, offering meaningful insight into the tool's operation, though it does not detail the exact return structure or error behavior.

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 consists of exactly two clear sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the essential US-stock exception. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and skimmable.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: it states the main function and the key exception. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have explicitly mentioned the return format (e.g., two numbers in an object). The US null note helps but leaves some ambiguity about how values are presented. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 'symbol' parameter with examples (005930, AAPL), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that US symbols will cause the tool to return null, directly linking the parameter value to a behavioral outcome. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's basic type and examples.

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 a specific action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and specific resource ('당일 상한가 및 하한가' - today's upper/lower limit prices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_candles, which serve different purposes. The statement about US stocks returning null adds a unique behavioral distinction.

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 when price limit information is needed, and the US stock null caveat provides a conditional context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_prices) or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the purpose.

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