메리츠 계좌

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces this by listing every endpoint as GET, but adds nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether api_type='describe' returns a fixed shape. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 intro is compact and the 12-row table is front-loaded, structured, and earns its space because the schema supplies no enum for api_type—the values must live somewhere. Slightly verbose in the header line, but no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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 an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers dispatch selection and the parameter-discovery mechanism well. The only real gap is the unexplained account parameter, which the api_type='describe' escape hatch partially mitigates.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain api_type (by enumerating valid values, necessary since the schema declares no enum) and the params container plus the 'describe' discovery pattern for params. However the third parameter, account, is never mentioned, leaving its semantics entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific resource domain (Meritz Open API — account/계좌) and enumerates all 12 account operations with their HTTP method and a concrete Korean purpose for each, so an agent knows exactly what api_type values are available. It does not, however, explain how this account dispatcher differs from siblings such as meritz_trading or meritz_info, which could also touch account data.

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?

It gives clear invocation mechanics (pick api_type, put arguments in params, call api_type='describe' to fetch parameter docs), which is implicit guidance on how to use the tool. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to a sibling tool for adjacent tasks, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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