일별 거래·수급 상세 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default view (flow), what fields are included (closing price, change rate, volume, trading amount, net buys, program, credit ratio), and that session view shows pre/intra/after-hours distribution. It also references underlying API codes. It doesn't discuss rate limits or output format but provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 efficient; every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, explaining the default view, framing when to use it, describing the alternate view, and listing alternatives. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and has zero fluff.

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 covers purpose, usage, both views, and alternatives thoroughly. It doesn't describe the output structure, but there's no output schema given, so this is a minor gap. It does mention '한 행에 묶어' (bundled in one row) giving some hint. For a complex tool with two distinct modes, this is reasonably 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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description enriches meaning by explaining the semantic difference between view=flow and view=session, clarifying the unit default (quantity), and giving practical context for count (default 20, max 60). This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 daily trading data for a stock in one call (종목의 일자별 거래를 한 번의 호출로 조회합니다). It names the two views (flow and session) and their content. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by pointing to get_stock_chart, get_investor_trend, and get_foreign_holding for other needs.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: '이 종목을 최근 누가 사고팔았나'를 볼 때 첫 번째로 쓰는 tool입니다 (first tool to use when checking who bought/sold). It also lists three alternative tools with their specific use cases, making the decision boundary clear.

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