메리츠 계좌

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's listing of GET operations adds little beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not add extra behavioral context like pagination or authentication requirements.

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 compact list with a short instruction header. Each endpoint line is informative and the structure is scannable. No filler words, though the list itself is necessary for the api_type values.

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 tool covers 11 endpoints, the description provides sufficient routing via api_type and a self-service describe option for parameters. The presence of an output schema covers return values. Auth requirements are not mentioned, but that may be handled elsewhere in the API ecosystem.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by enumerating all valid api_type values (the 11 endpoints) and explaining the params object. The describe mechanism provides a way to get further parameter details, adding meaningful guidance beyond the bare 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 clearly states this is the Meritz Open API for account-related queries, listing 11 specific GET endpoints. It names the resource (계좌) and the action (조회) for each, and the account scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like meritz_market and meritz_trading.

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 explains how to use the tool (select api_type, provide params) and mentions the 'describe' mode for parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, though the account-specific scope makes that self-evident.

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