체결 내역 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 that this is a read-only query and explicitly says it does not provide order execution functionality, which is important safety context. However, it does not clarify the time range of the executions (e.g., today only vs. all history) or mention pagination/result limits.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with the core function, then field list, filter options, alternative tools, and a safety note. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 query tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid list of returned fields, filter options, and alternative tools. It misses explicit mention of the time range (today vs. all) and whether results are sorted, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (side, order_no, stock_code) including enums and patterns. The description only mentions that these parameters can narrow the query, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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: it queries execution (filled order) details for an account, and lists the specific fields returned (order number, stock, buy/sell, order status, quantities, prices, fees/taxes, time). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by name.

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?

Explicitly provides alternative tool recommendations: get_pending_orders for unexecuted orders, get_trading_journal for daily stock aggregation, and get_transactions for period transactions. It also clarifies this tool is read-only and does not execute orders, giving clear usage boundaries.

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