업종 지수 차트 조회 (일/주/월/년/분/틱봉)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: ambiguous sector names return errors with candidate codes, and it references the underlying Kiwoom API codes (ka20004~ka20008/ka20019). It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the disclosed ambiguity handling adds meaningful transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and embed essential period and sector code details without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and it is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, period options, and sector code semantics, which is sufficient given the detailed schema. It does not describe the return format, but the tool is a chart retrieval and the schema covers all parameters, so the context is mostly complete. Minor gap: no explicit description of the output structure.

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. The description adds Korean translations for period values (e.g., '일봉', '주봉') and clarifies that sector_code can be a name or code, but these are largely redundant with the schema. The cross-reference to get_market_index provides modest added value, but not enough to score higher.

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 it retrieves candle charts for sector indices, with a specific verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and resource ('업종 지수의 캔들 차트'). It lists period options and sector code formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sector_price or get_stock_chart.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for sector index charts, and it cross-references get_market_index for sector code sourcing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it a step below a perfect 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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