get_options_daily

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it retrieves information, but does not mention any specifics such as market scope, data limitations, or access requirements. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

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 one line for the argument. It is front-loaded 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?

Despite having a simple structure and an output schema, the description fails to disambiguate which options market it covers (e.g., general options vs. KOSPI stock options vs. KOSDAQ stock options). The lack of usage guidance and market context leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to select the correct tool among many siblings.

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?

Although the input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description's Args section explicitly documents basDd as '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', conveying that the parameter is a base date in YYYYMMDD format. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool 'retrieves daily trading information for options' (옵션 일별매매정보를 조회합니다), which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_kospi_stock_options_daily or get_kosdaq_stock_options_daily, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the many similar daily market data tools. It only lists the basDd argument without any contextual hints, exclusions, or alternatives.

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