kis_get_account_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation (조회) with no side effects, and specifies the returned data (weights and total evaluation). This is sufficiently transparent for a query tool.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and adding output details. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the input and output sufficiently. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it queries account assets, specifies it is for real accounts only, and describes the output (asset type weights and total evaluation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like balance checks by focusing on overall asset status.

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 mentions '실전 전용' (real account only) as a usage condition, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kis_get_domestic_balance or kis_get_overseas_balance. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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