마켓별 전체 종목 조회

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no pagination, result size up to thousands of rows (~2,800 for NASDAQ, ~30KB gzipped), daily batch refresh with low volatility, tradable-only coverage, and the STOCK_ALL rate-limit group.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (정렬, 응답 규모, 관련 API) with the purpose front-loaded make it skimmable, and each block carries actionable information. The only waste is the opening sentence duplicating the title before the slightly fuller restatement.

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 4-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: sort order, absence of pagination, expected response volume, caching cadence, rate-limit group, and the natural next call. Missing enum glosses are minor against this coverage.

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 must carry the load; it names three of the four parameters (status, securityType, commonShare) and explains their shared semantics as universe filters, with market implied as the exchange selector. It stops short of clarifying enum value meanings (e.g., SCHEDULED vs DELISTED) or the commonShare boolean's effect, leaving some interpretation to the enum literals.

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 and resource ('마켓(거래소)별 종목 리스트를 조회') with explicit scope: the full universe of tradable symbols per market, no pagination. It also differentiates from the sibling toss_get_stocks by naming the follow-up call for per-symbol detail, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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?

Restricts use to universe construction ('종목 유니버스 구성 용도') and names the alternative (GET /api/v1/stocks) with the condition that selects it (needing name, currency, listing status). It further advises a once-per-day fetch plus local caching, which tells the agent not to call this per-request.

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