보유 주식 조회

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure (e.g., marketValue includes 'amountAfterCost - fee deduction') and the optional symbol filter, which are not captured by annotations. No contradictions with 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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a prerequisite hint, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Despite listing many return fields, every line provides necessary information. It is succinct for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates with a detailed Returns structure including nested items[] fields and explanations of derived values. Combined with full annotations and complete parameter schema coverage, only minimal information is missing (e.g., pagination, error cases), which are not critical for this read-only tool.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description enhances parameters by explaining that accountSeq comes from toss_get_accounts and providing symbol filter examples ('005930' or 'AAPL'). It also clarifies the role of each parameter in the returned data, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with '특정 계좌의 보유 주식 현황을 조회합니다' (queries the holdings status of a specific account), which is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope. It differentiates from siblings like toss_get_accounts (accounts list) and toss_get_orders (orders), and the accountSeq prerequisite points to toss_get_accounts.

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 tells users how to obtain the required accountSeq via toss_get_accounts, giving a strong usage context. It also explains that symbol is an optional filter for narrowing results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention competing alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.

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