get_sellable_quantity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the quantity is 'in your account' and per symbol, providing minor scoping context. It does not disclose edge cases, permissions, or what happens if the symbol has no sellable quantity, but this is acceptable given the annotations provide the key behavioral trait.

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 redundant text. The Korean translation adds clarity for non-English users without bloating the content. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only tool, and the output schema covers return value structure. However, it lacks context about account_seq and when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_holdings or get_buying_power. The presence of annotations and output schema reduces the burden, so this is not a critical gap, but the description does not fully complete the picture.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only implicitly clarifies 'symbol' by mentioning 'for a symbol'. It does not explain the 'account_seq' parameter, its optionality, or when it should be used. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving account_seq ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool gets the sellable quantity for a symbol in the user's account, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sellable quantity'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_holdings, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that it's easily distinguished.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as placing a sell order or checking available quantity before trading, nor does it contrast with get_holdings or get_buying_power. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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