get_stock_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '조회' (inquiry), implying a read operation, but gives no details about response format, authentication, rate limits, or what exactly the balance includes. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating purpose, plus a useful parenthetical alias. No redundant words or information.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., cash balance, holdings value). It doesn't, leaving the agent to infer the response. The core purpose is clear, but the lack of response details makes it only partially complete.

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 description covers 100% of parameters (account_no), explaining the environment variable fallback. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb '조회' (inquire) and resource '국내주식 계좌 잔고' (domestic stock account balance), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_price (price) and list_accounts (account listing). The shortcut name adds extra clarity.

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 implies its use case by stating it inquires account balance, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_stock_price or list_accounts, nor does it provide any when/when-not guidance. The usage is inferred from the purpose rather than stated.

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