국내 장 운영 정보 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by detailing the return structure (today with pre/regular/after market times, previous/next business day), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the tool's output.

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 and well-structured, with a clear Args/Returns format. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence is informative without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema—the description fully covers the necessary context. It clearly explains what the tool returns (market hours and business day fields) and the input format, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% for the single optional date parameter, so the schema already documents the format and default. The description repeats this same information (YYYY-MM-DD, default today), adding no new semantic value beyond what is already structured.

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 states a specific action (조회/retrieve) and resource (국내 KRX 주식 시장 장 운영 시간 정보), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It explicitly names the market (KRX) and the type of information (market operating hours), which also differentiates it from the sibling US market calendar tool.

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 that this tool is for the domestic KRX market, which implicitly distinguishes it from toss_get_us_market_calendar. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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