get_kts_bond_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and parameter format; it does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The '조회' verb suggests a read operation, but no explicit safety or limitation details are given.

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 sentence for the purpose and a brief Args section. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 is simple (one param, output schema available), and the description covers purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) and specifying the format 'YYYYMMDD'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the type as string. For the single parameter, this is complete and actionable.

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 it retrieves daily trading information from the KTS (Korean Treasury Bond Specialized Distribution Market). The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and specific resource '국채전문유통시장(KTS) 일별매매정보' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_general_bond_daily or get_bond_index_daily by naming the KTS market specifically.

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 implies usage when KTS daily bond trading data is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., other bond market tools). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied by the resource name.

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