get_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the data returned and market scope but does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or data latency. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 two concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 query with well-documented parameters, the description lists the key return fields (quantity, purchase price, valuation, profit/loss) and market scope. It lacks explicit output format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions including examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 retrieves the account's stock holdings with specific fields (quantity, cost, valuation, P/L). It specifies the scope (domestic and US stocks), which aids in distinguishing it from other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_position_risk, so I deduct one point.

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 querying holdings and notes the inclusion of both domestic and US stocks, giving context about when it's appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_position_risk or get_accounts, nor any exclusions.

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