시장 지표 현재가 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a 200-symbol batch ceiling and a specific 400 `unsupported-symbol` failure mode for out-of-catalog symbols, plus the MARKET_INDICATOR rate-limit group. Return format and pagination behavior are not described.

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 content is front-loaded and compact, with the symbol constraint and error behavior in the second paragraph and the rate-limit group bolded at the end. The opening sentence largely restates the title, costing a little efficiency.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers input format, limits, error behavior, and rate limits. The only meaningful omissions are the enumerated symbol list (external reference) and any hint about the returned price fields.

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 0% and the single `symbols` property has no description, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining comma separation, the 200-item limit, and that values come from an 8-symbol catalog. The catalog itself is deferred to a parent group description rather than enumerated here, which leaves a small gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it retrieves current prices for market indicators, explicitly scoped to domestic indices and government bonds. That scope distinguishes it in practice from toss_get_prices (stocks) and toss_get_market_indicator_candles, although no sibling is named directly.

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?

It supplies concrete operational guidance: up to 200 symbols per call, comma-separated formatting, and that only the 8 symbols in the Market Indicators catalog are accepted. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over toss_get_prices or the candles sibling, but the domain constraint provides clear selecting context.

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