Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_stock_priceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as a read (current price) and discloses a usage restriction (personal trading only) and a capacity limit (200 symbols). However, it does not detail error handling or authentication requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses two short paragraphs, but the warning about terms of use adds necessary behavioral context. Could be slightly more compact, but overall effective.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple single-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter format, and restrictions. No significant gaps are present for this complexity level.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage for the symbols parameter. The description compensates fully by explaining it is comma-separated, up to 200 symbols, with examples for domestic (6-digit codes) and US (tickers). This provides complete semantic meaning.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states it retrieves the current price of a stock ('종목의 현재가를 조회합니다') and provides usage context. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (account balance, holdings, transactions) which cover different financial data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call when user asks about current stock price. It also specifies the symbol format and a batch limit of 200. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the sibling tools cover other use cases.

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

• get_transactionsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses date format, timezone (KST), inclusive range, symbol filtering, only_filled behavior, and output field contents (execution). Does not cover pagination or rate limits, but sufficient for typical use.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two paragraphs with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter details. No superfluous text, though could be slightly more compact.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 4 parameters, output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics, filter defaults, and output field hints. Missing sorting or error handling, but adequate for the tool's complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains start_date/end_date format and inclusiveness, symbol as optional filter, and only_filled with default and behavior. Adds significant meaning beyond schema names.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('transaction/execution history'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on transaction records, while siblings handle balance, holdings, and stock price.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly lists example user queries that should trigger this tool (e.g., 'transaction history', 'what did I buy/sell last month'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear context.

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

• get_account_balanceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cash amounts may differ from deposits and that amount fields are strings for precision. It clearly explains the returned components. However, it does not mention error conditions, caching, or authentication requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise: two front-loaded sentences covering purpose and usage, followed by a necessary nuance paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the zero-parameter complexity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key points: what is returned and a notable cash precision detail. It could briefly mention error scenarios or context assumptions, but it is largely complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter description needed. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which indirectly informs the agent that no input is required.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it retrieves an account balance summary ('계좌 잔고 요약을 조회합니다'), listing specific components (stock valuation summary, cash amounts) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_stock_price.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit example queries ('내 계좌 잔고', '총 자산', '예수금/현금 얼마 있어') indicating when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the examples cover typical use cases well.

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

• get_holdingsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: return fields (quantity, average price, current price, P/L, summary), data types (strings for precision, decimals for rates). Could mention caching or rate limits, but adequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured: purpose, usage context, output summary, parameter details, data format notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers usage, input format, output fields, and data representation thoroughly. No missing critical information.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the symbol parameter: domestic 6-digit code, US ticker, and optional behavior. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific verb '조회' (query) and the resource '보유 주식' (holdings stocks). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on holdings versus balance, price, or transactions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use examples ('보유 종목', '내 주식', etc.) and explains the optional symbol filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but context from sibling names makes it clear.

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