예상체결 순위 조회 (동시호가)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple read-only expectation by detailing that empty results are a normal state during non-calculation times and not an error. This is valuable contextual information that helps the agent correctly interpret responses.

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 uses three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains the concept and optimal usage timing, and the third covers empty-result behavior and alternative tools. It is compact and well-structured without redundancy.

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 read-only ranking tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers necessary context. It explains the special timing contexts, empty-result behavior, and points to sibling tools for related but distinct queries. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, no further explanation is needed.

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?

All three parameters (top, sort, market) have descriptions within the input schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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's function: '예상체결가 기준 순위를 조회합니다' (queries ranking based on expected execution price). It explicitly names the underlying source (키움 ka10029) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning specific alternatives like get_ranking and get_after_hours.

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 explains when the tool is useful (during simultaneous auction phases before open and close), warns when results will be empty (outside Kiwoom's calculated times), and names three alternative tools for different use cases (get_ranking, get_market_movers, get_after_hours). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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