get_investor_deposit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds semantic context about the data types (customer deposits, credit balance, funds) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. Given the annotations cover safety, the added context is useful but not extensive, warranting a 4.

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 succinct: a title line, a one-sentence analogy, a one-sentence use case, and a parameter note. It front-loads the core concept and provides necessary details without padding. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 an output schema (not shown but present), the return format is covered. The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the only parameter with its constraints. There are no nested objects or complex requirements. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'days' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining it as '조회할 거래일 수 (기본 20, 최대 100)' – number of trading days to query with a default of 20 and a max of 100. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer type and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 purpose: it shows the trend of investor deposits (customer deposits, credit balances, funds) representing money waiting in the market. It explicitly contrasts with get_flow ('who bought' vs. 'how much buying money'), distinguishing it from a key sibling. The verb 'get' and resource are clear, and the Korean phrasing is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance by stating the questions it answers ('예탁금 늘고 있어?', '신용잔고 추이') and contrasts it with get_flow, implicitly telling the agent when to choose this tool over that sibling. It clearly implies the condition for use: when the user asks about deposit levels or credit trends, not stock supply/demand.

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