환율 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the dateTime defaulting to current time and lists return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error handling. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with an opening purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no wasted wording. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear, scannable format.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing all return fields (baseCurrency, quoteCurrency, rate, midRate, basisPoint, rateChangeType, validFrom, validUntil). It also explains the optional dateTime parameter. Missing are details on field types/units, but for a simple read-only lookup this is reasonably 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% – each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description repeats the same semantics and adds no new meaning beyond stating that baseCurrency and quoteCurrency must differ, which is also in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states 'KRW ↔ USD 환율 정보를 조회합니다' (inquires KRW↔USD exchange rate information), using a clear verb and resource. It uniquely distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which focus on stocks, orders, accounts, and market calendars. The title '환율 조회' further reinforces the purpose.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when exchange rate information is needed, with no overlap among siblings. It lists required parameters (baseCurrency, quoteCurrency) and optional dateTime, giving context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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