get_buying_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as 'read-only,' which is the key behavioral trait for a getter tool. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a simple read-only balance lookup this is acceptable.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a short Args list for parameter details. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only getter, the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and allowed values. The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not strictly required. Minor gaps like error behavior or permission requirements are not critical here.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that account_seq is the numeric accountSeq returned by get_accounts() and that currency must be 'KRW' or 'USD.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema and directly supports correct invocation.

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 specific action and resource: 'Get cash buying power for one account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts, get_holdings, or get_sellable_quantity. The Korean label reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear context: it operates on one account and explains that account_seq should be the numeric accountSeq from get_accounts(). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite relationship with get_accounts() provides enough guidance for typical use.

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