get_etn_daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.