get_buying_power

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'excludes margin', clarifying the precise nature of the buying power returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object. Every phrase earns its place, including the Korean translation and the margin exclusion. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only getter with two parameters, one required and one optional. The description, combined with the existing output schema and annotations, covers the essential behavior. It could benefit from a note about account_seq, but the schema already provides the type and default, so the description remains sufficient.

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 should compensate. It clarifies that the currency parameter accepts KRW or USD, which is already in the enum, and adds the 'cash' context. However, it does not explain the optional account_seq parameter, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cash buying power') with clear scope (per currency). It explicitly excludes margin, which distinguishes it from related tools like get_sellable_quantity or margin-related queries. The Korean gloss adds further precision.

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 clearly states the tool is for retrieving cash buying power for KRW or USD, setting a clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'excludes margin' note and the currency scope provide enough guidance for selection among siblings.

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