get_commissions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'inquire trading fees' without mentioning that it is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The minimal information leaves agents guessing about consequences.

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 a single short sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning the return type).

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 the lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling inquiry tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of fees, totals) or any time frame, leaving the agent without enough context.

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 100%, and the parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is sufficient for this single parameter.

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 verb '조회' (inquiry) and the resource '매매 수수료' (trading fees), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from sibling inquiry tools like get_accounts or get_holdings.

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 such as get_accounts or get_trades. There are no examples or context for appropriate usage.

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