kis_get_overseas_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('조회합니다') but fails to mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a simple inquiry tool, this is insufficient to fully inform the AI agent.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could explain what the response contains (e.g., list of stocks, quantities). However, for a straightforward balance inquiry with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. The tool's complexity is low, so a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 100%, with each parameter having a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description adds no extra semantics.

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's action: inquiring the holding stock balance of overseas stock accounts. It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource ('해외주식 계좌의 보유 종목 잔고'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kis_get_domestic_balance (domestic) and kis_get_overseas_stock_price (price).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description (overseas stock balance), but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it compares to similar tools like kis_get_account_assets.

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