get_stock_trade_info

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

Description mentions that data may be absent on weekends/holidays and that the tool returns KRX original fields. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but adequate for a read-only query.

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?

Description is well-structured with a main paragraph followed by an Args list. It is concise, with each sentence providing necessary information. No redundant or irrelevant text. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lists the specific fields returned (closing price, change, volume, etc.) and mentions they are KRX original fields. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, usage constraints (business day), and return values, making it complete for this simple 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: stock_code as 6-digit code with example, bas_dd as YYYYMMDD, and market as a list of options with auto-detect behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries daily trading info for a specific stock on a specific business day. It lists the specific fields returned and distinguishes from siblings via mentioning get_today_date for date checks. The verb '조회하다' and resource '특정 종목의 특정 영업일 일별 매매정보' are specific and unique among siblings.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance: bas_dd must be a business day, and if not, use get_today_date to find the previous business day. It also notes that market can be omitted for auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare against all siblings.

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