get_commissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation via '조회' and adds useful context about market segmentation and account specificity. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or return format, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose, the specific market breakdown, and the account scope. While it does not detail the exact response structure, for a query-type tool with this low complexity, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly. Minor gap: the phrase '현재 계좌' could be clarified as 'the specified account'.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'account_seq' already described as the account identifier from get_accounts. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that it applies to the current account, which aligns with the parameter but is not more informative. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource: commission rates (매매 수수료율) for the account, segmented by domestic/US markets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_orders, which address different data.

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 when commission rate information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., having an account_seq). There is no exclusion or comparison with other tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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