get_derivatives_index_daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.