get_elw_daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.