get_stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-detection logic (tries .KS then .KQ), data source (yfinance), no API key requirement, version info, and limitations (no intraday yet). This is good transparency for a simple tool, though rate limits and error handling are not mentioned.

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 concise (3 sentences) but includes version history and future plans, which add utility. The key information (market, price, source) is front-loaded. Could be slightly tighter by omitting version details, but still good.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and limitations. However, it does not describe the output structure (OHLCV fields) or clarify parameter usage. It is adequate but not complete.

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 compensate. It does not explain the expected format of 'stock_code' (e.g., 6-digit number) or the meaning of 'days'. The auto-detection mention is indirect. Parameter details are insufficient.

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 retrieves daily OHLCV bars for Korean-listed stocks on KOSPI/KOSDAQ, with price in KRW. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'stock quote', and distinguishes from sibling tools which handle corporate data, disclosures, and financial statements.

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 provides context about auto-detecting market and version limitations (v0.1 uses yfinance, v0.2 may add intraday), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than direct.

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