계좌 잔고 조회

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 discloses the underlying Kiwoom API calls (kt00001, kt00018, kt00004, kt00008) and explains how settlement view breaks down summary estimates. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only account query, the disclosed behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it defines the default view, lists its contents, explains the settlement view with a rationale, and names alternative tools. Content is front-loaded with the default view first, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the possible return content for both views and provides context for when to use sibling tools. It is complete and self-contained, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial semantic depth beyond the schema by detailing exactly what each view includes (e.g., 예수금, 총평가금액, 손익, D+1/D+2 estimates, fees, taxes). This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage and significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 that this tool retrieves account balance data with two views: summary (예수금, 평가금액, 손익 등) and settlement (다음 결제일의 건별 명세). It uses specific verbs and enumerates the exact contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transactions and get_account_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 explicitly explains when to use each view (summary for overall balance/profit-loss, settlement for upcoming settlement details) and explicitly directs users to get_transactions for past settlement history and get_account_holdings for per-stock balances, providing clear alternatives.

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