호가 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and addresses the most important behavioral trait: orderbook quotes are pending orders, not executed trades. It also discloses the 10-level depth, bid/ask composition, and KRX+NXT integration. However, it does not mention data latency, update frequency, or access limitations, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Four sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the core function, and the remaining sentences provide usage context and sibling distinctions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the returned data (10-level bid/ask and quantities), explains when to use it, provides alternatives, and covers prerequisite lookup. No additional context is needed for correct tool invocation.

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; stock_code is fully described in the schema with format and example. The description only adds a pointer to search_stock if the code is unknown, which is useful but does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 action ('조회합니다'), names the resource ('10단계 매도/매수 호가와 잔량'), and specifies the integration standard (KRX+NXT). It also explicitly contrasts with execution-focused sibling tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use this tool ('지금 어느 가격에 대기 물량이 얼마나 쌓였는지...'), and provides explicit alternatives: get_stock_quotes and get_execution_strength for actual execution flow, and search_stock for unknown codes. This fulfills when/when-not guidance clearly.

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