Retrieves server settings, API catalog summaries, and known issues for the Meritz Securities Open API, helping AI agents check system status and available endpoints before handling market data or orders.
서버 설정과 API 카탈로그 요약, 알려진 문제를 돌려줍니다.
| 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, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful content categories (server settings, API catalog summary, known issues), but does not disclose any further behavior such as freshness of known issues, authentication expectations, or output limitations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes meaning: what data is returned and for which general purpose.
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 zero-parameter schema, read-only annotation, and existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is the lack of sibling differentiation or usage context, but for a simple informational endpoint the provided content list is reasonably complete.
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 schema has 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not omit any parameter-related information.
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 states a clear verb ('returns') and specific resources: server settings, API catalog summary, and known issues. It distinguishes itself from the sibling domain tools (account, market, trading, etc.) by describing a meta/informational scope rather than a business operation.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meritz_reference or the domain-specific tools. The purpose is clear, but the agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.