기관·외국인 동시 순매매 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 unique feature of estimated average cost per entity and explains a use case (comparing current price vs average to spot trapped/profitable investors). It also mentions the underlying API code (키움 ka10062), adding context. However, it does not discuss output details or data freshness, keeping it from a 5.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states core function, second differentiates and adds interpretive value, third explains a parameter and points to alternatives. Front-loaded with key information, no redundancy or 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 tool has 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema. The description explains the purpose, unique average-price feature, and usage direction, but does not clarify the return structure (e.g., columns, order, pagination) or data update timing. Given no output schema, the description should provide more on what the response contains, leaving a clear gap.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by explaining the direction parameter in the context of the tool's core concept, but it largely repeats what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb '조회' and resource: ranking of stocks where institutions and foreigners net-trade in the same direction. It also explicitly distinguishes itself as the only tool providing estimated average prices per entity, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_net_buy_rank and get_investor_trend.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: use this when you need simultaneous same-direction trades and average prices. It explicitly names alternatives for different needs: '주체별로 따로 보려면 get_net_buy_rank(마감 후 12주체)나 get_investor_trend(종목별)를 쓰세요' and highlights the unique value proposition.

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