시장 순위 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While '조회' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, mention data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. The absence of such information for a ranking query is a gap.

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 efficiently concise, with a single sentence that front-loads the core action and appends essential parameter details. No redundant or superfluous information.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics adequately. However, it does not describe the output format, ordering, or any pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a ranking tool. It is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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%, but the description adds value by providing Korean translations for enum values (e.g., 'rise(상승률)') and mentioning the Kiwoom API codes. It also clarifies the default and maximum for 'top' implicitly. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter meanings 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 clearly states the tool retrieves today's market rankings (당일 시장 순위 조회) and specifies the ranking types (rise/fall/volume/value) and market segments (all/kospi/kosdaq). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_stock_price or get_market_index, which focus on individual stocks or indices.

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 explains the purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. The context is implicit from the tool name and sibling list.

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