시장 특이 종목 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and does so well: it states that surge/plunge and volume_surge are based on '전일 대비' (previous-day comparison), that volume_surge is ordered by surge volume with a 5,000-share minimum, and that volume_renew means today's volume exceeds the max of the prior cycle. This significantly exceeds a minimal 'get movers' statement, though it omits output structure and any rate-limit or auth details.

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 dense but each clause carries useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It uses semicolon-separated enumerations and parenthetical annotations to pack signal definitions, market options, defaults, and comparative rules into a compact space. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it defines all eight signals, all market values, all relevant time windows, defaults, exceptions, and ordering/threshold behavior. The only omission is return-format details, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden in that area, and the operational semantics are fully covered.

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?

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters with enums and Korean descriptions, the description adds substantial semantics beyond it: it clarifies that days is only used for new_high/new_low, cycle only for volume_renew, and it explains the comparative logic and thresholds for volume_surge. This is a strong enrichment over the schema, not mere repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('시장 특이 종목을 조회합니다') and enumerates all eight signal types (new_high, new_low, upper_limit, etc.) with Korean labels. This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_ranking or get_vi_stocks by specifying exact signal semantics.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for parameter combinations: days only applies to new_high/new_low, cycle only applies to volume_renew, and it explicitly contrasts volume_renew ('longer-term volume breakout') with volume_surge ('previous day only'). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling market-scanning tools such as get_ranking or get_vi_stocks, so cross-tool guidance is implied rather than direct.

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