get_flow

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses the data source (네이버 증권) and missing data (개인 순매매). Additional details like update frequency or rate limits would improve transparency, but current disclosure is adequate.

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?

Efficient structure: a one-line purpose, a note on limitation, example queries, and a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals), description appropriately focuses on input and limitations. It explains what data is retrieved and important exclusions. Could mention potential date range or pagination constraints, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'code' as 6-digit stock code with example, and 'days' as number of query days with default. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves investor-specific trading trends (institutional/foreign net trading stock count) using the verb '가져옵니다'. It explicitly mentions what is not provided (개인 순매매), distinguishing from potential related tools.

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 example queries for when to use ('외국인 수급', '기관 순매수', etc.) and notes the limitation that individual net trading is not available. However, it does not mention alternative tools for cases it does not cover.

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