get_etf_daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.