계좌 거래내역 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most dangerous behavioral quirk: dates are settlement-based (D+2), so the latest 2 trading days' executions are absent, and pre-settlement ranges are unqueryable across all tools. This prevents false 'missing data' conclusions. Minor gap: no mention of return format or pagination, hence not a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then defaults/params, then the critical D+2 warning and sibling routing. Bold formatting highlights the key trap. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to re-emphasis of the settlement lag, but every clause carries differentiating information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and high sibling-confusion risk among ~50 tools, the description covers what it does, defaults, parameters, the critical behavioral quirk, and explicit exclusions. Missing only minor details like response shape and any date-range limits, which are predictable from the tool name and title.

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, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: default values (from_date = 30 days ago, to_date = today) and the semantic that date parameters are interpreted on a settlement basis, which materially changes how an agent should set them.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: '계좌의 거래내역(매수/매도 등)을 기간별로 조회합니다' — retrieves account transaction history by period. The D+2 settlement disclosure and explicit contrast with get_order_executions and get_trading_journal clearly differentiate it from 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?

Provides explicit routing: same-day execution price/time → get_order_executions (with the caveat it has no past dates), same-day per-stock P&L → get_trading_journal, and states pre-settlement periods are queryable by NO tool. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs alternatives and when to give up.

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