get_market_briefing한국 증시 최신 시황 브리핑(장중 4회 갱신): 한 줄 요약, 지수, 시장폭, 업종 흐름, 테마별로 묶은 주요 종목과 이유.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_market_briefing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the data refreshes four times per trading session, which tells an agent how stale a result may be. It stops short of describing caching, latency, or response shape beyond the listed sections.
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 sentence front-loads the scope and refresh cadence, then enumerates the payload sections in a compact colon-delimited list. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (market scope, freshness) come first.
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 description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the five content blocks including the reasons attached to themed stocks. Minor gaps remain — exact structure, units, and whether values are delayed — but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain inputs. It correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead spends its words on output content.
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 names a specific resource — a Korean market briefing — and enumerates its contents (one-line summary, indices, market breadth, sector flows, themed stocks with reasons), which is far more concrete than the title. It is distinguishable in scope from news- or disclosure-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 'updated 4 times during trading hours' clause implicitly signals this is for a current intraday snapshot, so an agent can infer freshness-oriented use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as get_news_summary for narrative news.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.