get_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions the batch limit but does not describe the response format, error behavior when exceeding 200 symbols, rate limits, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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 one concise sentence in Korean that states the core function and the key constraint. No filler, and it is immediately understandable. It earns its place with minimal wording.

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?

The tool is simple, but the missing output schema and annotations make the response format unknown. The description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., price per symbol) or any error conditions. It is adequate for knowing how to invoke the tool but incomplete for fully anticipating the result.

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 thoroughly documents the symbols parameter (comma-separated, max 200, examples), and the description repeats the maximum limit without adding new semantics. The description does add that the operation returns current prices, but that is beyond the parameter itself. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries current stock prices (현재가를 조회합니다) with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the batch capability up to 200 symbols, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_candles that serve different data needs.

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 use for fetching current quotes and gives a practical limit of 200 symbols per call, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_candles for historical data) or any exclusions. This is an implied usage context but lacks clear differentiation.

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