메리츠 기준정보

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: all operations are GET, api_type='describe' returns parameter documentation instead of data, and the tool is a multiplexer over five fixed endpoints. Return format and auth requirements are not stated, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Front-loaded preamble followed by a tight aligned list of the five operations; the 'describe' hint comes early where it is most useful. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 dispatcher over five read-only endpoints with an output schema present, the description supplies the dispatch protocol, the operation menu, and a way to discover per-operation parameters. The unexplained account parameter and the absence of sibling-routing context are the only omissions.

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% and api_type has no enum, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, enumerating the five valid api_type values plus 'describe'. It also explains that params holds the per-call arguments, deferring detail to the describe mode. The account parameter is never explained, which is the only real gap.

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 the resource (메리츠 Open API 기준정보) and enumerates all five concrete operations with their HTTP verbs and Korean glosses, so an agent knows exactly what the tool can do. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like meritz_market or meritz_overseas_market, which cover overlapping market-days/hours concepts; that routing ambiguity keeps it below 5.

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 explains the calling convention well — pick the operation via api_type and pass parameters in params — and offers a self-documentation escape hatch (api_type='describe'). But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over meritz_market/meritz_overseas_market, nor any exclusions, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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