섹터 구성 주식 조회

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

With annotations only covering read-only/non-destructive semantics, the description still adds real behavior: intraday cumulative `volume`/`tradingAmount` with nulls when no quote exists, KRW conversion for US names with per-item `currency`, exclusion of delisted stocks, the exact 404 error code, and the rate-limit group `SECTOR`. That is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 opening sentence carries the core semantics, and the bullets are condensable but each is unique information (null handling, currency conversion, delisting exclusion, error behavior). No sentence simply restates a structured field.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does: sort order, nullability, currency fields, and exclusion rules are all covered. What remains unstated is the shape of each item (field listing) and whether results are truncated—the only real gap for an agent to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it identifies `marketCountry` as the market-basis filter and `sectorId` as needing to be a listed sector id. However, it does not explain what KR vs US actually selects (the listing market vs the currency) or the `sectorId` format, so the 0% coverage gap is only partly closed.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource plus its scope: all common stocks in a sector, sub-sectors included, filtered by `marketCountry`, sorted by market cap descending. That level of detail (common stocks only, delisted excluded) makes it distinguishable from `toss_get_sector_etfs` and `toss_list_sectors` without opening the schema.

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?

It sets a clear precondition: `sectorId` must come from the sector list (`GET /api/v1/sectors`), otherwise you get 404 `sector-not-found`; this implicitly routes the agent to `toss_list_sectors` first. It never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling such as `toss_list_stocks` or `toss_get_sector_rankings`, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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