get_holdings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.