업종별 종목 시세 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses sorting, first-page-only behavior, the 100-stock limit, and the ambiguity error behavior. It stops short of specifying the returning data shape or authentication/rate constraints, so it is strong but not maximal.

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 one packed paragraph but has almost no filler: the first sentence states the main purpose, the second covers ordering and pagination, and the final sentence handles disambiguation and alternative tools. Every sentence provides actionable value.

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 tool selection, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what to pass, how to resolve the only meaningful input ambiguity, and what behavior to expect. It does not declare the exact return fields in the absence of an output schema, which keeps it from scoring a 5.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters well (100% coverage), so this is above baseline. The description adds extra semantic context such as that sector_code can be either a 3-digit industry code or an industry name, cannot be a theme name, and that ambiguous names will produce an error. This improves over raw 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 '조회' retrieves quotes for stocks belonging to a specific KRX sector, identifies the underlying operation (ka20002), and even differentiates from theme-based lookups by stating theme names are not accepted. This unmistakably distinguishes it from get_theme_stocks and other sector-related siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: if the user asked about '테마', use get_theme_groups then get_theme_stocks; otherwise get_sector_stocks is applicable. It also defines that sector_code can be obtained from get_market_index, and warns about overlapping names like '반도체'.

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