get_markets_margin_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only a plan limitation ('Standard+ only') but no further behavioral context (e.g., data delay, rate limits). Without contradictions, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 moderately concise, with a clear structure: purpose sentence, usage keywords, supported plans, and parameter list in bullet-point style. Minor wordiness (e.g., Japanese terms) but overall efficient.

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?

Given 4 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers intended use, plan limitations, and parameter details. It does not explain the interaction between date and date_from/date_to, but this is a minor gap. Completeness is good for the tool's complexity.

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 provides parameter descriptions: code format (5 digits), date format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), and explains date_from/date_to as range query endpoints. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 it provides per-stock margin trading restriction status (増担保規制・信用規制). It differentiates from the sibling tool get_markets_margin_interest, which covers margin balances. The verb 'get' and resource 'markets_margin_alert' are specific.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (追証, 規制銘柄, etc.) and directs the agent to an alternative (get_markets_margin_interest) for margin balances. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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