ETF 정보 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API endpoints but does not state whether the tool is read-only, safe, or has side effects. For a data retrieval tool, it should clarify that it does not modify anything.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core functionality and prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and how to get the required parameter, but it omits return format, error conditions, and behavioral traits. For a simple lookup, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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% for the single parameter (stock_code) with pattern and example. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it does provide context on how to obtain the parameter value using search_stock. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 that the tool retrieves ETF tracking index, tax type, and current price. It provides the verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource 'ETF info', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_price for individual stocks. However, it could be more explicit about the exact set of return fields.

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 advises to use search_stock first if the stock code is unknown, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with other get_ tools, but the context implies this is ETF-specific, and the sibling list includes many unrelated tools.

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