종목 현재가 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists output fields, it does not mention whether data is real-time or delayed, error handling for invalid codes, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence covers functionality, the second provides a critical usage hint. Structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good list of return elements (price, change rate, volume, basic indicators, industry/listing date, special status). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what data to expect, though error behavior and real-time status are omitted.

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% with a clear parameter description and pattern. The description adds context (domestic stocks/ETFs, ka10001 reference) but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (조회하다/retrieve), resource (국내 주식/ETF의 현재가, 등락률, 거래량, 기본 지표), and input (6자리 종목코드). It distinguishes itself by mentioning it also shows industry/listing date and special status, which is not covered by siblings like search_stock or get_etf_info.

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 explicitly tells agents to use search_stock if only the stock name is known, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance. It implies this tool is for a single stock code, but does not explicitly exclude other tools like get_stock_quotes for multiple quotes.

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