Toss Get Prices

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness (real-time vs delayed), error behavior for invalid symbols, or response format. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the key information: what it does (get prices), scope (current, up to 200 symbols, markets). No wasted words.

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 price-getting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, input format, limits, and market. It lacks mention of output structure, but that is not required since no output schema exists. It could be improved by noting that it returns current (not historical) prices, but the name implies it.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the format (comma-separated), market scope (KRX or US), and a limit (up to 200 symbols). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions. A '5' would require more detail like symbol validation rules or allowed characters beyond the pattern.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'prices', and scope 'up to 200 comma-separated KRX or US stock symbols'. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like toss_get_candles (historical) and toss_get_price_limits (not current prices).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that historical prices should use toss_get_candles or that price limits should use toss_get_price_limits. The description is purely functional.

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