섹터 상세 조회

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it specifies behavior: changeRates always has exactly 6 entries in duration order (1d→1y), missing periods come back as null changeRate (e.g., a market with no constituents), values are decimal ratios, and unknown sectorId returns 404 `sector-not-found`. It also discloses the rate-limit group (SECTOR), giving the agent context for both error and quota handling.

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 content is front-loaded in one lead sentence and then bulleted, and every bullet adds real information about nulls, ordering, decimal units, or errors. The opening line repeats the title, which is minor waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still adequately describes the return structure (basic info fields; performance.changeRates with fixed length, ordering, units, and null semantics), plus the error case and rate-limit group. An agent can call this confidently and interpret the result without more information.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that marketCountry governs only performance.changeRates while basic info is market-agnostic, and that sectorId values not present in the sector list yield a 404. It doesn't explain the sectorId pattern or the enum values, but the schema carries those constraints.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource (섹터 상세 조회) and enumerates the returned content: basic info (name, hierarchy, one-line summary) plus period-based change rates. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings such as toss_list_sectors, toss_get_sector_rankings, toss_get_sector_stocks, and toss_get_sector_etfs, without the agent needing to compare schemas.

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 explains data scoping (basic info is market-independent; only performance.changeRates is market-specific), but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of the sibling list, rankings, stocks, or ETFs tools. The mention that unknown sectorId from `GET /api/v1/sectors` returns 404 only hints that sector IDs come from the list endpoint, without saying so.

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