프로그램 매매 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that date_rank allows past dates with extra fields, stock_intraday only provides the most recent trading day and ignores base_date, amounts are in million won, and market has no 'all' option. It also notes arbitrage_balance represents unclosed positions, not trades, which is critical behavioral context.

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 long but every clause carries unique information—view definitions, constraints, units, and exceptions. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and logically organized from view enumeration to parameter applicability. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description indicates key output dimensions for several views (e.g., date_rank includes amount and trade weight; stock_intraday includes quantity) and sets expectations about accuracy and date limitations. However, views like market_daily and market_intraday are only described as '추이' without specifying output fields, leaving a slight gap for a complex multi-view tool.

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. However, the description adds significant inter-parameter constraints: 'direction은 top·date_rank에, unit은 view=top에만, market은 top·date_rank·market_daily·market_intraday에만 적용됩니다 (종목 단위 view와 arbitrage_balance에는 적용되지 않습니다).' This goes beyond per-parameter schema definitions and clarifies combinations, which is highly valuable.

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 '프로그램 매매 상위 종목과 추이를 조회합니다', clearly stating the tool retrieves program trading top stocks and trends. It then enumerates seven distinct views, differentiating the resource and scope. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_institution_trend or get_foreign_intraday.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '한 종목의 프로그램 수급이 장중 언제 뒤집혔는지를 보려면 stock_intraday, 날짜별 흐름은 stock_daily입니다.' It also clarifies accuracy trade-offs ('당일 순위는 top이 서버 집계라 더 정확합니다') and parameter applicability exclusions. This is exemplary.

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