Retrieve authentication steps, call conventions, response codes, and known issues for Meritz Securities Open API to enable correct API usage and code generation.
인증 절차·호출 규약·응답 코드·알려진 문제를 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the content scope (authentication, conventions, response codes, known issues) but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as whether results are static, cached, or require specific permissions. With annotations present, the added content context justifies a 3.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant or filler content, and it efficiently conveys the full scope of what the tool returns.
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?
For a parameterless read-only reference tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It lists the four categories of content returned, and the output schema covers the response structure. No additional prerequisites or caveats are needed, making this definition fully sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed. It does not need to explain parameter formats or defaults since there are none.
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 returns authentication procedures, call conventions, response codes, and known issues. The verb 'returns' plus the specific content types make the purpose explicit, and the content differs from sibling tools like get_api_detail, which presumably provides API-specific details rather than conventions.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving conventions, but it does not mention exclusions or contrast with siblings like get_api_detail or search_api. An agent would have to infer the appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.