get_stocks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the batch size limit (max 200) and the comma-separated input format, and the read-only nature is implied by '조회' (retrieve). It does not mention error behavior or response structure, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, the parameter format, and a limitation. It could mention response fields explicitly or error cases, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the symbols parameter fully. The description repeats the comma-separated and max 200 details without adding new semantic meaning, which is the baseline for high schema 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 tool retrieves basic stock information (name, market, currency, listing status, etc.) with a specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and a well-defined resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices, get_candles, or technical indicators, which focus on price or derived data.

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 the tool is for basic stock metadata lookups, and the batch limit of 200 gives usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names make the division of labor reasonably clear.

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