최근 체결 내역 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the result count limits (default 50, max 50) and the output fields, which helps set expectations beyond the 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 read-only trade listing tool, the description is complete: it specifies symbol formats, count limits, and the exact return fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema. The annotations cover safety, so no further behavioral caveats are needed.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints (100% coverage). The description essentially repeats the schema information without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 '특정 종목의 최근 체결 내역을 조회합니다' (retrieve recent trade executions for a specific symbol), using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like toss_get_orderbook and toss_get_candles by focusing on executed 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?

It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name and description, which is enough to infer but lacks explicit guidance.

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