업종 현재가 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by naming the Kiwoom API (ka20001) and enumerating the returned data fields, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only nature (though '조회' implies it). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and data fields, followed by parameter guidance. Every clause contributes essential information, and the formatting is clean and scannable. No wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the key return components (index, open/high/low, volume, rising/falling counts, 52-week high/low, time-series trends), which gives a good sense of the response. It also fully covers the single parameter. It lacks explicit differentiation from nearby siblings, but the detailed field list helps. Overall, it is quite complete for a simple query 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% and the schema already describes sector_code with examples and error behavior. The description adds value by referencing get_market_index as the code source and reinforcing that sector names are acceptable. This goes beyond the schema's details, so a score above baseline is warranted.

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 current price details of a sector index, listing specific data fields (index, open/high/low, volume, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sector_stocks or get_sector_chart by focusing on '현재가 상세' (current price details) and referencing a specific backend API. The verb '조회합니다' unambiguously indicates a read operation.

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 for when to use the tool: to get detailed current price information for a sector index. It also tells users how to obtain the sector_code via get_market_index and that sector names are accepted. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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