VI 발동 종목 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses parameter interactions (stock_code overrides market, potential empty results), lists return fields (발동가격, 괴리율, etc.), and identifies the data source (키움 ka10054). It lacks details like sorting/pagination or whether the data is real-time, but for a lookup tool, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the following dash-separated clauses compactly summarize parameter options and special behavior. It is concise yet informative, with no filler content, though it is slightly dense due to the parameter enumeration.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, parameter defaults, parameter interactions, and return fields. It does not explicitly describe the output format or sorting order, but these are not critical for a simple retrieval tool. The mention of the underlying system (ka10054) adds useful context.

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. The description adds some semantic value by translating enum values (상승/하락, 정적/동적) and explaining the consequence of stock_code/market mismatch ('종목의 시장과 어긋나면 결과가 비므로'). However, much of the parameter information is already present in the schema descriptions, so the added value is marginal.

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's function: '당일 변동성완화장치(VI)가 발동된 종목을 조회합니다' (retrieve stocks that triggered VI today). It specifies the resource (VI-triggered stocks), the verb (조회/retrieve), and lists the key data fields returned (발동가격, 괴리율, 등). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_movers or get_stock_quotes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for retrieving VI-triggered stocks. It explains parameter defaults and the precedence rule for stock_code over market, including a practical warning about mismatched markets leading to empty results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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