get_kospi_stock_options_daily

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, or rate limits. It adds no useful context beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits any mention of the specific market (KOSPI vs other) beyond the name, and provides no context about the nature of the data (e.g., OHLCV fields) or when to choose this tool over alternatives. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a user navigating many similar daily data tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', providing both meaning (base date) and format, which is crucial for a cryptic parameter name. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool 'retrieves daily trading information for stock options (listed securities)', which is a specific verb+resource with market identification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily by the '유가증권' (listed securities) qualifier.

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 like get_options_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases.

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