Toss Get Trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions count default and cap but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or other safety traits. The 'get' verb implies non-destructive but could be more explicit.

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 without redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds parameter behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and count behavior. It could mention that the output is a list of trade objects, but the name 'trades' implies that. Slightly incomplete but adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the 'count' parameter (default and maximum) and indicates that 'symbol' is for KRX or US stocks, which helps the agent. Could include format examples but still useful.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'recent trades', and the scope 'one KRX or US stock symbol'. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like toss_get_orders or toss_get_holdings.

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 use for a single stock symbol's recent trades but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like toss_get_orders and toss_get_holdings serve different purposes, but no mention of exclusions.

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