PER·PBR·ROE 순위 조회 (시장 전체)

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

The description adds contextual behavior beyond a simple 'retrieve' by explaining how to interpret the metrics (e.g., low PER for value screening) and mentions the Kiwoom API code (ka10026). However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state read-only/safety or describe any side effects, though '조회' implies read.

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 three sentences: first states the function, second gives screening use cases, third names alternatives. It is front-loaded with the action and has no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return structure, but it does not. It also says 'top 100' while the schema allows configurable top from 1-100 with default 20, which could confuse. Usage context is well covered, but output format and pagination are not disclosed.

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 input schema covers both parameters exhaustively with descriptions, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing the metric use cases, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the top 100 stocks ranked by PER/PBR/ROE across the entire market, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it is the only valuation-based market scan tool.

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 provides use cases: low PER/PBR for value screening, high ROE for capital efficiency, high PBR/low ROE for overheat/insolvency. It names alternatives: get_ranking for volume/price change rankings and get_stock_price for single-stock PER/PBR, and states 'this tool is the only one' for market-wide valuation scans.

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