get_us_etf_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output content (holdings, sectors) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples. Mixed language (Korean/English) is acceptable for context. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Has output schema but details not shown. Description covers typical ETF info queries but lacks behavioral or authentication context. Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but missing transparency elements.

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 0%, but description adds meaning by defining ticker with examples ('SPY', 'QQQ', 'VOO', 'SCHD'). This provides practical context beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 provides US ETF details (top holdings, sector weight, asset allocation) with example queries like 'SPY 구성종목' and 'QQQ holdings'. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_etf_info (likely for Korean ETFs) through the 'US' prefix and specific examples.

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 usage context via example questions ('SPY 구성종목', 'QQQ holdings') and specifies ticker examples. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, though sibling list context implies US ETF specificity.

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