get_futures_daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.