판매 가능 수량 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the return value: sellableQuantity is a decimal string, with KR being integer and US potentially fractional. This goes beyond the annotations' capability.

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 highly concise, using a single-purpose summary sentence followed by clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides return format and parameter provenance, which is largely sufficient. It could mention edge cases like pending orders affecting sellable quantity, but the current level of detail is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, with both accountSeq and symbol fully described in the schema. The description's Args section merely repeats the schema text and adds 'required' markers already present in the required array, providing no new semantic meaning.

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 retrieves sellable quantity for a specific account and symbol, using a specific verb ('조회합니다'). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by explicitly targeting '판매 가능 수량' (sellable quantity) as the resource.

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 implies usage context by specifying that accountSeq comes from toss_get_accounts and by detailing symbol formats. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_holdings or explain when to prefer this tool, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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