KRX 금현물 시세 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. It discloses mode-specific content (daily includes institutional/individual net buying, ticks includes execution strength and best bid-ask), the only two listed instruments, default values, and the lack of a stock master. However, it does not describe the return format or mention any error conditions, which keeps it from being 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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations and a usage caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and usage boundaries well. It explains what daily and ticks modes return at a high level. The only minor gaps are the lack of explicit return shape and whether rows applies to both modes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the two instruments (1kg vs 100g mini), detailing what daily and ticks modes include, and explicitly clarifying that base_date is daily-only and that no stock code is needed. This goes beyond the schema's bare enum values.

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 KRX gold spot prices with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing gold ETFs/ETNs to get_stock_price and noting that search_stock cannot find gold spot instruments due to the absence of a stock master.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use for physical gold price (KRW per gram), and for gold ETFs/ETNs use get_stock_price instead. It also warns that stock codes cannot be entered and search_stock is not applicable, preventing common misuse.

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