toss_get_commissionsRetrieve trading commission information for a specific account by account sequence number to review applicable fees before trading.
Get trading commission information for an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountSeq | Yes | When accountSeq is required, call toss_get_accounts first. Select the user's intended account; if multiple accounts are ambiguous, ask the user. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / accountSeq / descriptionPrevious value: -"Toss accountSeq. If omitted, TOSSINVEST_ACCOUNT is used."New value: +"When accountSeq is required, call toss_get_accounts first. Select the user's intended account; if multiple accounts are ambiguous, ask the user."Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "accountSeq"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context about what commission data is returned, whether it is real-time or account-specific, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the lack of usage and return-value context.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It lacks any explanation of what commission information includes or how it should be used, but no output schema exists to carry that burden instead.
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%, and the accountSeq parameter already includes useful guidance to call toss_get_accounts first and ask the user if ambiguous. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trading commission information') scoped to an account. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from sibling account-information tools such as get_accounts or get_buying_power.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites. The only usage detail comes from the schema's accountSeq note, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.