매물대집중 종목 조회 (시장 전체)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool's read-only, query-like nature via '조회합니다' and explains the conceptual meaning of supply/demand zones. However, it does not describe the output format, return fields, or any limitations (e.g., sorting, pagination) beyond what the schema covers, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the interpretation/use-case, then distinguishes from alternatives. Each sentence earns its place and the overall structure is easy to scan.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the underlying concept, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return structure or sample output, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Nonetheless, the rich schema and clear purpose make the tool mentally invocable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already having a clear description (defaults, ranges, and meanings). The tool description adds conceptual context about 매물대, which helps understand the parameters, but it does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus, 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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and the resource ('매물대에 몰린 종목' - stocks concentrated in supply/demand zones). It also differentiates from siblings by naming specific alternatives like get_orderbook and get_market_movers, making the unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('현재가 위아래 어디에 물량이 뭉쳐 있는지 확인할 때') and explicitly names alternatives for related but distinct tasks (get_orderbook for single-stock orderbook, get_market_movers for volume surges). It even states '가격대별 거래 분포를 보는 것은 이 tool뿐입니다' to emphasize exclusivity.

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