signing_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a 'procedure' or guide, implying it is non-destructive and informational. It also adds context about debugging common signing errors. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not make API calls or have side effects, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences in Korean. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical usage hint (common failure point). No extraneous text; every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's nature as a reference guide. It names the signing method (JWT + query_hash) and a specific error scenario. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., return type or content structure), which could aid an agent in processing the result.

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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required. The description's focus on the signing guide content is appropriate.

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's purpose as a procedure for request signing (JWT + query_hash). It also adds specific value by mentioning a common pitfall (401 errors when copying the Upbit example), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sign_request that actually perform signing.

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 implicitly guides usage by highlighting the tool as a reference for developers stuck on 401 errors from copying examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when actual signing is needed) or mention alternatives like generate_signed_request. The context provides some inference, but lacks direct exclusion.

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