시장 특이 종목 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It explains the tool queries based on signal, market, days, and top, and references underlying API codes. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but these are not expected for a non-destructive read operation.

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 concise, packing essential information into a few sentences without fluff. It could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for signals), but it remains clear and 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?

While input parameters are well-covered, the description does not mention the output format or what the returned data looks like. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for an AI agent to understand how to use the results.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the meaning of each signal (e.g., new_high means 신고가) and clarifying that days only applies to new_high/new_low, while surge/plunge is based on previous day. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states '시장 특이 종목을 조회합니다' (query market moving stocks) and lists specific signals and market options. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_stock_price by focusing on unusual market movements.

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 clear context on signal types and when parameters like days are applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool relative to alternatives, though sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

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