ETF 정보 조회

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions internal API codes (ka40002, etc.) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks explicit safety characteristics.

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?

Two sentences: first states the action and APIs used, second gives a usage tip. Front-loaded with essential information, no redundant words.

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?

No output schema, but the description lists the returned fields (tracking index, tax type, price, NAV, discrepancy). Could be improved by specifying output format or structure, but overall sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% with pattern and example. The description adds the practical tip about using search_stock but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool queries ETF information including tracking index, tax type, current price, NAV, and discrepancy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_etf_returns by specifying multiple data sources and mentions using search_stock for unknown codes.

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?

Explicitly advises using search_stock first if the stock code is unknown, providing a clear alternative. Does not differentiate from get_etf_returns or other ETF-related tools, but the context of 'ETF info' implies its scope.

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