호가 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it clarifies that the order book represents pending orders, not executions, which prevents a common misinterpretation. It also specifies the 10-level depth, the KRX+NXT integrated scope, and the source message ID (ka10007), providing rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core functionality is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, when to use it, and which alternatives to consider. It is concise yet highly informative.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the returned content (10 levels, quantities), the integrated market scope, the intended use case, and differentiates from all relevant siblings. No output schema is needed because the description adequately explains what the agent should expect.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a pattern and example for stock_code, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance by telling the agent to use search_stock to find the code first, thereby adding value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') and names the exact resource: 10-level bid/ask prices and quantities on an integrated KRX+NXT basis. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_execution_strength, get_order_executions, and get_stock_quotes, making its purpose uniquely clear.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (to see waiting volume at each price and whether bid/ask side is thicker) and explicitly directs to alternatives for execution strength, account executions, and multiple current prices. It also advises using search_stock if the code is unknown, giving complete usage guidance.

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