get_konex_stock_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. The verb '조회합니다' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether it is safe, whether any permissions are needed, or what happens for invalid dates. It adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious fact that it queries data.

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 brief and well-structured: a single purpose statement followed by a clear Args block. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The description is adequate for a simple single-parameter query tool, but it lacks explicit context about the scope of the returned data (e.g., whether it covers all KONEX stocks for the date). The output schema covers the return structure, but the description does not mention any constraints or edge cases. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in explaining what 'daily trading information' includes.

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 0% description coverage, but the description effectively compensates by explaining the sole parameter basDd as '기준일자' (base date) with format 'YYYYMMDD'. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of the parameter, which is the only input required.

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 specifies the verb '조회합니다' (queries) and the resource '코넥스(KONEX) 일별매송정보' (KONEX daily trading information), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_daily and get_konex_stock_base_info by market and data type. The scope is explicit and matches the tool name.

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 alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as get_konex_stock_base_info. The lack of context leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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