get_kospi_stock_futures_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. It discloses that this is a read operation (조회), but it does not provide any additional behavioral context such as availability constraints, data limits, or error conditions. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the basic action.

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, with a single primary sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded main idea makes it easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It omits general usage guidance, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema keep it reasonably complete.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining basDd as 기준일자 (base date) with the format YYYYMMDD. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field, though it only partially compensates for the lack of schema-level 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 a specific action (조회합니다, 'retrieves') and a specific resource (주식선물(유가증권) 일별매매정보, 'stock futures (KOSPI) daily trading information'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_kosdaq_stock_futures_daily and get_kospi_stock_daily. The resource is precise and unambiguous.

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 description (query daily trading info for KOSPI stock futures), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The tool name already carries the KOSPI distinction, and the description adds no further context or alternative references.

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