보유 종목 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 that the operation is a retrieve (조회), lists output fields, and notes that no arguments are required. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention error conditions, or authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence. The main action is front-loaded ('조회합니다'), and the detailed field list is appended logically. No wasted words or redundancy with the title.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It enumerates the exact return fields, identifies the data source (키움 kt00018), and confirms no arguments are needed. No additional context is required for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states '인자가 필요 없습니다' (no arguments needed). This goes beyond the baseline for zero-parameter tools, providing clear confirmation and eliminating any ambiguity about invocation.

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 the tool retrieves the account's holdings list and enumerates the specific fields returned (quantity, average price, current price, valuation amount, profit/loss, return rate, weight). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_balance, which focus on balance rather than held stocks.

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 implies usage when holdings are needed but provides no explicit alternative guidance or when-not-to-use conditions. It does not compare with other account-related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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