Toss Get Prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and external-data nature are covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the hard cap of 200 symbols per call and that symbols may span both KRX and US markets. It says nothing about response shape, currency handling, delayed vs. real-time data, or per-call rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with constraints stated inline. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 input side is adequately covered for a one-parameter read tool, but with no output schema and no annotations describing return values, the description never indicates what a "price" comprises (last, bid/ask, currency, timestamp, market-open state). An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict the payload.

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 single parameter is undocumented in structured data, so the description carries the burden — and it does: `symbols` is a comma-separated string, capped at 200, and accepts KRX or US tickers. It still doesn't show the expected ticker format (e.g., '005930' vs 'AAPL', case sensitivity, exchange suffixes), which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get current prices") and scopes it by market (KRX or US) and batch size (up to 200 symbols), which distinguishes it in practice from historical tools like toss_get_candles. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the split between current quotes and candles/last-trade 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 word "current" implies this is the real-time/snapshot quote tool rather than the historical one, which is a usable usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternatives (e.g., toss_get_orderbook, toss_get_price_limits) are routed to, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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