get_buying_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It adds meaningful context by specifying the calculation is cash-based and assumes no unsettled receivables ('미수 미발생 기준'), which is a useful caveat. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though '조회' implies it), nor does it disclose other potential limitations like pending orders or error conditions.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action (조회) and resource. It contains no redundant or filler words, and the parenthetical '미수 미발생 기준' adds a necessary qualifier without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter query with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details about the return value format (e.g., numeric amount, currency) and potential error scenarios. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for clarification.

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 parameters already clearly described (currency enum and account_seq from get_accounts). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: querying cash-based buying power available for buy orders. The verb '조회' (query) and resource '매수 가능 금액' (buying power amount) are specific, and the condition '미수 미발생 기준' distinguishes it from potential alternatives like margin-based calculations. It uniquely identifies this tool 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?

The description implies usage for buy orders by stating '매수 주문 시', giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, such as get_sellable_quantity for sell-side checks. There is no comparative guidance.

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