get_gold_market_daily

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says '조회합니다' (inquiries). There is no mention of data source, pagination, rate limits, or any caveats. It does not add any behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, consisting of a single sentence plus parameter explanation. Every element is directly relevant, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or expected output semantics. It is a bare minimum for a simple one-parameter read tool, but lacks the contextual richness seen in well-crafted descriptions.

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 has no description for basDd and schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explicitly explains basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)' (base date in YYYYMMDD format). This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it could further clarify whether the date is the trading date or reference date.

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 it inquires daily trading information for the gold market, using a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource. However, it does not specify what exactly constitutes 'trading information' (e.g., price, volume), making it slightly vague but still distinct from sibling market tools.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over similar sibling tools like get_oil_market_daily.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.