메리츠 국내주식 시세

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the api_type='describe' mode that returns parameter explanations, and the enumeration of the ten sub-APIs, which informs the agent of the tool's full capability without relying on the schema. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 efficient: it front-loads the purpose and usage pattern, then lists the ten endpoints in a compact, scannable table. Every line serves a purpose—there is no filler or redundant explanation—making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 exposes ten distinct endpoints and has a sparse input schema, the description gives an agent a sufficient overview of available operations and how to discover parameter schemas via the describe mode. The output schema exists, so return value details are covered elsewhere. The description could mention authentication or rate limits, but those are not critical given the read-only, idempotent nature already indicated.

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 so by listing the valid api_type values (the endpoint names) and explaining that params holds the parameters. It also instructs the agent to use api_type='describe' to obtain detailed parameter descriptions, effectively providing a self-documenting mechanism for a tool with minimal schema 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 clearly states the tool provides domestic stock market quotes and lists 10 specific GET endpoints for different data types (candles, investors, orderbook, prices, trades). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying '국내주식' (domestic stocks) and by focusing solely on market data, which is separate from trading, accounts, or overseas markets.

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 choose an API via api_type and how to use params, and mentions that api_type='describe' returns parameter descriptions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like meritz_overseas_market or meritz_trading; the usage context is implied by the tool name and scope rather than spelled out.

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