Get buying power

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the relationship to holdings but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or default currency behavior, which the schema partially covers.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential complementary information without wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description and schema together fully explain what it returns and when to use it. The note about computing total assets with toss_get_holdings makes the context complete despite the absence of an output schema.

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 fully describes the single optional 'currency' parameter with an enum and explicit note that omitting it fetches both KRW and USD. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns available cash' with the resource 'Toss Securities account,' clearly conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling toss_get_holdings by explicitly stating that holdings excludes cash.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage guidance: 'toss_get_holdings excludes cash, so call this too when computing total assets.' This names a concrete scenario and the complementary sibling tool, effectively communicating when to use it.

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