openkrx-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct by market and product type, but the index-related tools (KRX, KOSPI, KOSDAQ, bond, derivatives) could be confused due to similar naming and daily price descriptions. Stock and bond tools are clearly separated by market segment.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent get_<market>_<data_type> pattern with lowercase snake_case. The use of 'daily', 'base_info', and 'info' suffixes is predictable across the set.
Tool Count2/5
At 31 tools, the set is significantly larger than the typical MCP server, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Many tools are specific market variants, but the count still feels heavy for an agent to navigate.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a broad range of Korean financial markets including indices, equities, bonds, derivatives, and commodities. Minor gaps exist such as missing currency or corporate action data, but the core daily data retrieval is well-covered.
Average 3.5/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says '조회합니다' (inquiries). There is no mention of data source, pagination, rate limits, or any caveats. It does not add any behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus parameter explanation. Every element is directly relevant, and there is no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or expected output semantics. It is a bare minimum for a simple one-parameter read tool, but lacks the contextual richness seen in well-crafted descriptions.
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 schema has no description for basDd and schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explicitly explains basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date in YYYYMMDD format). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it could further clarify whether the date is the trading date or reference date.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it inquires daily trading information for the gold market, using a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource. However, it does not specify what exactly constitutes 'trading information' (e.g., price, volume), making it slightly vague but still distinct from sibling market tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over similar sibling tools like get_oil_market_daily.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic retrieval action and does not disclose data scope, return volume, read-only nature, pagination, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's core purpose.
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 very short and front-loaded, with the parameter details in a clear Args block. It is appropriately concise with no redundant text, though the brevity omits important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are not needed in the description. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the data scope (individual stock vs. aggregate market) and provides no usage context or alternative guidance, making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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 description explains basDd as 기준일자 (YYYYMMDD), providing a clear semantic meaning and format that the schema (just a string type) lacks. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it only covers the single parameter briefly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (조회/retrieve) and resource (유가증권(KOSPI) 일별매매정보, i.e., KOSPI daily trading information). It distinguishes from index tools via the 'stock' in the tool name and the mention of KOSPI. However, the Korean term '유가증권' is ambiguous and the description does not specify whether the tool returns data for individual stocks or the aggregate market, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_kospi_index_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_daily. The description only gives the parameter format, with no contextual or alternative-specific advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only indicates a read operation ('조회') and specifies the date parameter, but does not mention return format, business day handling, or any limitations. This is insufficient for transparent behavior.
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 appropriately brief: one sentence plus an Args block. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it omits some useful context that could be added without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter, and an output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, the description lacks context about what 'trading information' includes and does not explicitly mention that this is for stocks (vs. index or other KOSDAQ products), which is important given the many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no description for basDd, so the description compensates by specifying the format '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the semantic meaning of 'base date' is not expanded further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '코스닥(KOSDAQ) 일별매매정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves KOSDAQ daily trading information), which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the market and frequency but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_kosdaq_index_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_futures_daily; the name carries the 'stock' modifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists the parameter format and gives no context for selecting it over similar daily market tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it retrieves information, but does not mention any specifics such as market scope, data limitations, or access requirements. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the argument. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a simple structure and an output schema, the description fails to disambiguate which options market it covers (e.g., general options vs. KOSPI stock options vs. KOSDAQ stock options). The lack of usage guidance and market context leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to select the correct tool among many siblings.
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?
Although the input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description's Args section explicitly documents basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', conveying that the parameter is a base date in YYYYMMDD format. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states that the tool 'retrieves daily trading information for options' (옵션 일별매매정보를 조회합니다), which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_options_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar daily market data tools. It only lists the basDd argument without any contextual hints, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves daily data, without revealing any behavioral traits such as date range constraints, data source, update frequency, or whether it returns a single day's record. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.
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 extremely concise—one sentence stating the purpose and a short Args block for the sole parameter. Every element earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the context is incomplete. It does not mention any special behaviors, limitations, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 description coverage (only 'Basdd' as title), but the description compensates by providing an Args block that explains 'basDd' as the base date (기준일자) and specifies the YYYYMMDD format. This gives the agent meaningful guidance on how to construct the parameter value, which the schema alone would not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves daily bond index price information ('채권지수 일별시세정보를 조회합니다'), which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_krx_index_daily or get_general_bond_daily, but the name alone conveys the scope (bond index vs. other asset types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and the parameter, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The sibling list includes several similar daily-price tools, but no comparison or selection criteria are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It only states that the tool 'retrieves' data, but does not disclose anything about permissions, return format (beyond output schema), pagination, or whether the data is historical/real-time. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema already indicates.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose and one line for the parameter definition. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is functional but not rich. It covers the purpose and the essential parameter, but lacks any notes on usage context, return value nuances, or edge cases. This is adequate but has clear gaps, such as no mention of what data points are included or any limitations.
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 schema provides 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description explicitly documents basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', meaning base date in YYYYMMDD format. This adds critical meaning that the schema lacks, effectively compensating for the schema gap. It could be a 5 if it also mentioned range constraints or examples, but it is sufficient for a single straightforward parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves daily price information for derivatives indices (파생상품지수 일별시세정보를 조회합니다), which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other index types (e.g., KRX, KOSPI, KOSDAQ). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention any prerequisites, or note any exclusions. Without this context, an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given request beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description merely states a read operation without disclosing behavioral details such as date range constraints, response structure, or any special requirements beyond the parameter format. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides minimal transparency.
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?
Two sentences: one for purpose, one for the parameter. No filler or redundant content; front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-param tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials but lacks any contextual guidance about data scope or relationship to sibling daily data tools. It's minimally viable but not rich.
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 description's Args section adds meaning beyond the bare schema by defining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) and specifying format YYYYMMDD, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'ESG ETP 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves ESG ETP information), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_esg_index_info, though '정보' is broad and doesn't clarify whether this is daily data or static info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_esg_index_info and various daily tools exist, but the description doesn't mention exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden, but it only states that the tool retrieves information. It does not disclose authentication requirements, read-only safety, output volume, pagination behavior, or any other behavioral traits beyond the bare purpose. The verb '조회' implies a read operation, but no further context is added.
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 extremely concise—a single clause plus a one-parameter Args block. Every element carries information, with no filler or repetition, and the key purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description and schema are likely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, the description lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and provides no behavioral context (e.g., whether authentication is needed), so completeness is adequate but not strong. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the description itself remains minimal.
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 provides zero description for the basDd parameter, but the description compensates by explicitly defining its meaning ('기준일자' = base date) and format (YYYYMMDD). This adds clear semantic value beyond the schema's minimal title, though it lacks any additional constraints such as allowed date ranges or holiday behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Retrieves futures daily trading information' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the tool queries daily futures trading data, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling futures tools such as get_kospi_stock_futures_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_futures_daily.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling market data tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It merely says 'retrieve' (조회), implying a read-only operation, but discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or what exactly is included in 'daily price information.'
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 appropriately brief: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter data retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, it lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context, and the large sibling set makes the absence of explicit differentiation a meaningful gap.
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 description's Args block explains that basDd is the base date in YYYYMMDD format, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property name and title. It does not define valid date ranges or trading-day constraints, but for a single parameter it is sufficiently informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves daily price information for KOSDAQ series indices, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_kospi_index_daily or get_krx_index_daily, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any preference over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but offers no details about output format, limitations, or any special behavior. This is minimal and lacks transparency.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence followed by an Args section. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition, appropriate for a one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'KRX series' refers to and provides no caveats or background. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for basDd, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'basDd: 기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', adding meaning and format. This is helpful, though it could be more explicit about the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves daily price information for KRX series indices ('KRX 시리즈 지수 일별시세정보를 조회합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling index tools like KOSPI/KOSDAQ/bond/derivatives, though the 'KRX series' scope is somewhat distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description only explains the basic function and does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves data, which is already implied by the 'get_' prefix in the tool name. It does not mention any return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only in a meaningful way.
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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence and one parameter explanation. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though for a simple one-parameter getter it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks any note on data scope, limitations, or conditions, and the lack of annotations leaves the read-only nature only implicitly conveyed by the verb '조회'.
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 description explains basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', providing both the meaning (base date) and the expected format. This is valuable enrichment over the input schema, which only defines the parameter as a bare string type with the title 'Basdd'.
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 '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource 'ELW 일별매매정보' (ELW daily trading information), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. The ELW designation distinguishes it from sibling daily-data tools for other instruments such as stocks, bonds, and index futures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, and while the ELW name implies the target domain, the description does not explicitly state conditions or preferences for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool retrieves information and documents the basDd parameter. It does not mention safety, side effects, read-only nature, or return behavior, which is a notable gap for a query tool.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus a structured Args list. There is no redundant content and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving the contextual picture incomplete despite the minimal complexity.
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 description includes an Args section explaining basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', providing both semantic meaning (base date) and format. Since the schema has zero description coverage for this parameter, the description fully compensates and adds value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'ESG 지수 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieve ESG index information), using a clear verb and resource. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_esg_etp_info, relying on the name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no context on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회합니다' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent enough. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data delays, or the structure of the returned data beyond the 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus an Args list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is clean and easy to parse, ideal for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema provided), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the parameter format. However, it could benefit from explicitly distinguishing itself from the very similar get_etn_daily or get_elw_daily tools, but this is not critical given the sibling names.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the parameter basDd: '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (reference date, YYYYMMDD format). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's bare string type, effectively compensating for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves ETF daily trading information ('ETF 일별매매정보를 조회합니다'). The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and resource 'ETF daily trading info' make the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings via the instrument type (ETF vs ETN, ELW, etc.), though it does not list the exact fields returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many similar daily-data siblings (e.g., get_etn_daily, get_elw_daily), nor does it offer any exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the lookup action. It does not mention read-only nature, data source, authentication, rate limits, or potential errors, offering little transparency beyond the tool's name.
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 succinct and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the parameter explanation. No extraneous words or repetition.
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?
With one required parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. It lacks explicit guidance on valid date ranges or clarification of 'base info' vs. daily data, but the existence of sibling tools and the output schema mitigate these gaps.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by fully explaining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) with the format YYYYMMDD. This gives the agent precise input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves KONEX stock basic information using the verb '조회' (retrieve) and the specific resource 'KONEX 종목기본정보'. It distinguishes itself from sibling daily price tools and other market base-info tools by market, but does not elaborate on what 'base info' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_kospi_stock_base_info or get_kosdaq_stock_base_info. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It only states the operation is a query and the data is daily price info; it does not mention output format, pagination, date constraints, or any side effects. This is minimal but not contradictory.
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 one sentence plus a single parameter explanation, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks any usage context or constraints, which is a minor gap for agents distinguishing among many similar sibling tools.
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 schema property basDd has no description (0% coverage), but the description's Args section adds meaning by specifying it is a base date (기준일자) with format YYYYMMDD. This compensates for the lack of schema description.
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 'KOSPI 시리즈 지수 일별시세정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves daily market info for KOSPI series index), specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_krx_index_daily and get_kosdaq_index_daily.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance regarding when to use this tool versus the many sibling daily price tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or use cases, offering only a factual statement of function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only indicates a read operation ('조회') and provides no details on output format, data scope, pagination, or any side effects. It is not misleading but is overly minimal.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core statement in one sentence and parameter details in a compact Args block. Every element serves a purpose with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema and a single well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate for a simple lookup. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by documenting the single parameter 'basDd' with its meaning (기준일자) and format (YYYYMMDD). This adds clear value beyond the raw schema.
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 states the specific action '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resource '유가증권(KOSPI) 종목기본정보' (KOSPI stock base info). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kosdaq_stock_base_info and get_konex_stock_base_info by explicitly naming the KOSPI market.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for KOSPI stocks specifically, nor does it contrast with related tools like get_kosdaq_stock_base_info or get_kospi_stock_daily.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, or rate limits. It adds no useful context beyond the basic purpose.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits any mention of the specific market (KOSPI vs other) beyond the name, and provides no context about the nature of the data (e.g., OHLCV fields) or when to choose this tool over alternatives. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a user navigating many similar daily data tools.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', providing both meaning (base date) and format, which is crucial for a cryptic parameter name. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.
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 tool 'retrieves daily trading information for stock options (listed securities)', which is a specific verb+resource with market identification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily by the '유가증권' (listed securities) qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_options_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only conveys a read operation through the verb '조회'. It does not mention output format, date range limitations, or data scope, leaving the agent without critical operational details.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose sentence and an args list with no redundant content. It front-loades the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral notes, which prevents full completeness for an agent navigating many sibling tools.
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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates by explaining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) and specifying the format YYYYMMDD. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw string type, fully clarifying the single required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves SRI bond information using the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource 'SRI 채권 정보', which distinguishes it from sibling bond tools like get_general_bond_daily. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the information (e.g., price, yield, holdings), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_general_bond_daily or get_esg_etp_info. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, which is essential for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read operation via '조회합니다' but does not disclose limitations, authentication needs, behavior for invalid dates, or any other operational traits.
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 two lines: a one-sentence purpose and an Args section. It is front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, it lacks usage differentiation among many sibling daily-data tools, and the absence of annotations and usage guidelines leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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 no description for basDd (0% coverage), but the description provides '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', explaining the parameter's meaning and format. This compensates 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 states '신주인수권증권 일별매매정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves daily trading information for stock warrant securities), using a specific verb ('조회합니다') and a specific resource ('신주인수권증권'). The term clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ELW or subscription rights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of exclusions, alternative tools, or criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only contains the read-oriented verb '조회합니다' (retrieves), but does not disclose what the output contains, any limitations, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.
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 a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a concise Args block. It contains no redundant wording, is front-loaded, and the parameter format is clearly presented.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter format. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, it lacks broader context (e.g., data source, availability) but remains largely sufficient.
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 no description for basDd (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining 'basDd: 기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', providing both the meaning (base date) and the required format, which is valuable for correct invocation.
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 uses the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) with the resource '배출권시장 일별매매정보' (emissions market daily trading information), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_oil_market_daily and get_gold_market_daily.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would favor a different sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회합니다' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it is safe, whether any permissions are needed, or what happens for invalid dates. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious fact that it queries data.
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 brief and well-structured: a single purpose statement followed by a clear Args block. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter query tool, but it lacks explicit context about the scope of the returned data (e.g., whether it covers all KONEX stocks for the date). The output schema covers the return structure, but the description does not mention any constraints or edge cases. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in explaining what 'daily trading information' includes.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description effectively compensates by explaining the sole parameter basDd as '기준일자' (base date) with format 'YYYYMMDD'. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of the parameter, which is the only input 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 specifies the verb '조회합니다' (queries) and the resource '코넥스(KONEX) 일별매송정보' (KONEX daily trading information), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_daily and get_konex_stock_base_info by market and data type. The scope is explicit and matches the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as get_konex_stock_base_info. The lack of context leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the full transparency burden. It only says '조회합니다' (retrieves), which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether the date must be a trading day, what the return payload looks like, or whether it returns all KOSDAQ stocks for that date.
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 a single sentence plus a parameter line, with no excessive detail. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives the purpose and essential date parameter. It could specify that it returns info for all KOSDAQ stocks on that date, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain basDd. It does this by specifying '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date in YYYYMMDD format), which fully clarifies the single parameter.
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 uses the specific verb '조회' (retrieve) with a clear resource 'KOSDAQ 종목기본정보' (KOSDAQ stock basic info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kosdaq_stock_daily (daily price data) and get_kospi_stock_base_info (KOSPI base info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or suitable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회합니다' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval action.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the tool's function followed by an Args section detailing the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition; each sentence serves a purpose.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and the exact date format. The only gap is the lack of alternative tool guidance, but that is a minor deficiency given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema provides no description for the parameter basDd (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining it as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' meaning base date in YYYYMMDD format. This adds critical meaning beyond the structured schema.
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 states a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource as '주식선물(코스닥) 일별매매정보' (KOSDAQ stock futures daily trading information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_futures_daily and get_options_daily by specifying the KOSDAQ market.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_kospi_stock_futures_daily or get_futures_daily. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or tool selection context beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a query (조회) with no details about return format, error conditions, data limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.
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 a single sentence plus a parameter line, extremely concise and directly to the point. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant information.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The given information is sufficient to know what the tool does and how to supply the date, though it omits any extra context about the oil market scope or data specifics, which could be a minor gap.
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 schema has zero description for basDd, but the description provides the meaning (기준일자) and format (YYYYMMDD), which adds value beyond the schema. This compensates for the schema's lack of coverage.
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 tool retrieves daily trading information for the oil market (석유시장 일별매매정보), with a specific verb (조회) and resource. The sibling list shows similar tools for other markets, so the resource name distinguishes it clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the name and description but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided; however, sibling names make the differentiation obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a query/read operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or return format. Given the simple read nature, the disclosure is basic but lacks depth, resulting in an average score.
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: a single Korean sentence stating the purpose, followed by a minimal parameter annotation. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it easy to parse and act upon.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and a clear output schema (not shown but known to exist), the description provides the essential purpose and parameter format. It could be enhanced with a hint about the output content, but given the simplicity and the presence of a structured output schema, it is reasonably 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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (string) with no description, so the description adds crucial meaning by explaining 'basDd' as the reference date in YYYYMMDD format. This compensates well for the complete lack of schema-described parameters.
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 action ('조회합니다' - query) and the resource ('신주인수권증서 일별매매정보' - subscription rights certificates daily trading information). This well-defined target distinguishes it from the many sibling daily market data tools, which focus on other financial instruments like stocks, bonds, or indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the name and resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via '조회' and provides the date parameter semantics, but does not disclose potential error behavior, data availability, or any access constraints. The simplicity of the tool mitigates the need for extensive disclosure, but there is no additional context beyond the action and parameter.
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 extremely concise: one purpose statement and one parameter line. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and parameter. However, it does not mention any cross-tool alternatives or caveats (e.g., data coverage), which would be helpful when multiple similar daily tools exist, so it is not a 5.
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 schema provides only a string type for basDd with no description. The tool description explicitly defines basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date, format YYYYMMDD), fully clarifying the parameter's meaning and expected format, thus compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'ETN 일별매매정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves ETN daily trading information), with a clear verb ('조회') and resource ('ETN daily trading info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_etf_daily and get_elw_daily by asset class, though it doesn't elaborate on what exactly constitutes 'trading information'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the resource type: use this tool when you need ETN daily trading data. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, but the specificity of 'ETN' offers context. It does not name sibling tools that might be more suitable for other asset classes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (query) and the parameter, but does not describe output format, data source, limitations, or any side effects. Although the verb implies a read-only operation, the description is too sparse to offer meaningful transparency.
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 a single, direct sentence followed by an argument list. Every element is essential and information-dense, with no redundant or filler content. It is perfectly front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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?
For a simple single-parameter data retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the parameter meaning. The only minor gap is the lack of any contextual hints about data coverage or special conditions, but these are not critical for such a basic query tool.
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 description explicitly explains the meaning of basDd (기준일자 = base date) and its format (YYYYMMDD). This adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which only shows the parameter name and type. It fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.
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 tool retrieves daily trading information for the general bond market, using the specific verb '조회합니다' (query/retrieve) and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_kts_bond_daily and get_small_bond_daily by specifying '일반채권시장' (general bond market).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for general bond market daily data, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions or alternative tools, but the '일반' (general) qualifier provides a subtle hint that it is distinct from more specialized bond tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the purpose and parameter format; it does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The '조회' verb suggests a read operation, but no explicit safety or limitation details are given.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and a brief Args section. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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?
The tool is simple (one param, output schema available), and the description covers purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete.
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, but the description compensates fully by explaining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) and specifying the format 'YYYYMMDD'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the type as string. For the single parameter, this is complete and actionable.
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 daily trading information from the KTS (Korean Treasury Bond Specialized Distribution Market). The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and specific resource '국채전문유통시장(KTS) 일별매매정보' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_general_bond_daily or get_bond_index_daily by naming the KTS market specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when KTS daily bond trading data is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., other bond market tools). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (조회), but it does not provide any additional behavioral context such as availability constraints, data limits, or error conditions. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise, with a single primary sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded main idea makes it easy to parse.
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?
For a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It omits general usage guidance, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema keep it reasonably 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining basDd as 기준일자 (base date) with the format YYYYMMDD. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field, though it only partially compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 a specific action (조회합니다, 'retrieves') and a specific resource (주식선물(유가증권) 일별매매정보, 'stock futures (KOSPI) daily trading information'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_kosdaq_stock_futures_daily and get_kospi_stock_daily. The resource is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description (query daily trading info for KOSPI stock futures), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The tool name already carries the KOSPI distinction, and the description adds no further context or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a safe read-only operation through the verb '조회' (lookup), but it does not disclose any limitations, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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 very concise: one sentence stating the purpose and an Args section explaining the parameter. Every word is purposeful, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema provided), the description is complete. It names the market, the data frequency, and fully documents the parameter. No additional context is necessary for a straightforward getter.
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 only lists basDd as a string with title 'Basdd' and no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining the parameter as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date in YYYYMMDD format), adding critical meaning beyond the schema.
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 tool's purpose: retrieving daily trading information for the small bond market (소액채권시장 일별매매정보). It uses a specific verb ('조회' = retrieve) and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_general_bond_daily and get_kts_bond_daily by specifying 'small bond market'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_general_bond_daily) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-only '조회' (retrieval), which implies no side effects. However, it does not mention anything about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple data retrieval tool, the core behavior is disclosed, but additional context is missing.
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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose sentence and includes a minimal Args block for the parameter. No unnecessary information, and all sentences contribute to understanding the tool.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the tool's scope (KOSDAQ stock options daily data) and the parameter format. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention that the data is for a single date or that it is read-only, but these are reasonably implied.
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 provides only the parameter name 'basDd' with a title, giving no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explicitly defining basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date, format YYYYMMDD). This fully explains the parameter's meaning and format, adding significant value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and a specific resource '주식옵션(코스닥) 일별매매정보' (KOSDAQ stock options daily trading info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_options_daily and get_options_daily.
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 clear context: it is for KOSDAQ stock options daily trading data. The name and description make the intended use obvious, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool when KOSDAQ stock options data is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openkrx-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joohyukjung/openkrx-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joohyukjung/openkrx-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openkrx-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joohyukjung/openkrx-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joohyukjung/openkrx-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joohyukjung/openkrx-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server