매수 가능 금액 조회

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds context about the cash basis and the 'no unpaid balance' (미수 미발생) calculation, which clarifies the meaning of the returned value. It also explains the dependency on toss_get_accounts for accountSeq, providing valuable integration context beyond 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every element adds value, including the source of accountSeq and the decimal-string format of the return. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values: currency and cashBuyingPower, including its meaning as cash-based and decimal string. It also covers the required input linkage to toss_get_accounts. Given the tool's simplicity, this is fully complete.

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 both parameters already fully described. The description redundantly restates the parameters and adds '필수' (required), but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It provides no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves the cash-based buying power of a specific account, using a specific verb (조회) and resource (매수 가능 금액). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact concept being queried (cash buying power, excluding unsettled credit).

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 provides clear context for usage: target specific account (via accountSeq from toss_get_accounts) and currency (KRW/USD). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the parameter linkage and return semantics imply when to use it: when you need cash-based buying power rather than holdings or sellable quantity. No explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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