계좌 잔고 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (deposit, purchase, evaluation, profit/loss) and notes that it combines multiple internal API calls (키움 kt00001, kt00018, kt00004). It does not mention side effects or performance, but as a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key data points. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though the list of fields makes it slightly dense.

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?

The description provides a comprehensive list of returned data fields, including deposit, purchase, evaluation, and profit/loss metrics. It also mentions the internal APIs used. Without an output schema, this covers the essential context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description confirms no arguments are needed. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds sufficient value by stating the absence of required inputs.

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 specifies the verb '조회' (inquire) and the resource '계좌 잔고' (account balance), listing many specific fields such as deposit, purchase amount, evaluation amounts, and profit/loss. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_holdings or get_transactions.

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 states that no arguments are needed ('인자가 필요 없습니다.'), which guides usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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