Toss Get Stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint – a 200-symbol batch cap and accepted market coverage – but says nothing about what happens with invalid symbols, partial results, or lookup failures against the external API.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource and constraints appear in the first clause. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the agent has no idea what 'master data' returns (name, market, currency, lot size, trading status?), which is the main thing an agent needs before choosing this over toss_get_prices. The input side is complete, but the return side is opaque.

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% (the single parameter is just typed as string), so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it specifies comma-separated format, the maximum of 200 entries, and that symbols may be KRX or US. It stops short of showing a concrete example format, which would have completed the picture.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stock master data') plus the scope boundaries (up to 200 comma-separated KRX or US symbols). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never contrasts itself with toss_list_stocks, which could plausibly be confused with it.

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 gives operational constraints (batch cap of 200, comma-separated format, KRX/US coverage), which hints at how to use it. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as toss_list_stocks for enumeration, leaving routing to inference.

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