호가 조회

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return structure (timestamp, currency, asks[], bids[]) and symbol format requirements (KRX numeric vs US ticker), which go beyond annotation metadata.

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-line purpose, then clear Args/Returns sections, and examples. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter format, return fields, and examples. It is self-contained for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The schema description covers the symbol parameter 100%, and the description repeats the same explanation. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 queries current orderbook (bid/ask depth) for a specific symbol, using a specific verb '조회' and resource '호가'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_get_prices and toss_get_trades.

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 context for market data retrieval but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied by the examples, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools such as toss_get_candles or toss_get_trades.

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