매매 수수료 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with those. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return value is the raw API response ('API 응답 그대로 반환'), which is useful. No contradictions.

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 concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns sections. No filler or redundant explanations beyond what is useful, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: purpose, parameter source, and return behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema description covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), and the description repeats the same semantics without adding further details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the meaning and source of the parameter.

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 'Retrieves trade fee information for a specific account' with a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (매매 수수료/transaction fees). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which are fee-related, and specifies the account scope.

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 contextual guidance by noting the accountSeq should come from the toss_get_accounts response, implying this tool is used after listing accounts. It clearly implies when to use (query fees for a known account), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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