toss_get_tradesRetrieve recent trades for a KRX or US stock symbol, with an optional count capped at 50, to inspect recent market activity.
Get recent trades for one KRX or US stock symbol. count defaults to the Toss API default and is capped at 50.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does 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 is covered. The description adds the useful non-schema fact that count falls back to a Toss API default. It doesn't mention latency, real-time vs delayed data, or pagination behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the count caveat second. No filler, though the sentence about count could have been folded into the first for even better flow.
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?
A simple read-only market-data tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, but it also doesn't say what a trade record includes or whether data is real-time. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent that needs to interpret results.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains count's default and cap (though the cap of 50 is already in the schema's maximum), but says nothing about the symbol parameter's expected format beyond 'KRX or US stock symbol' – no ticker pattern examples or market-specific formatting.
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 and resource (recent trades for one KRX or US symbol) and names the scope constraint. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like toss_get_stock_program_trades or toss_get_candles, but the resource is specific enough to be identifiable.
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 versus toss_get_candles, toss_get_orderbook, or the various specialized trade tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated beyond the symbol scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.