체결 내역 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the date range is determined by Kiwoom, that there is no date parameter, that observed behavior shows 6-day-old executions return zero rows, and that settlement is D+2. It also states the tool is read-only and does not execute orders.

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 dense but every clause earns its place, and the most important constraint — recent-only, no past dates — is front-loaded. The bolded warnings and alternative routing are structured so an agent can quickly extract the critical behavioral rule before reading supporting details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the returned fields, the filtering parameters, the date-range limitation, settlement timing, sibling alternatives, and the read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds that stock_code, side, and order_no can narrow the results, but this is already implied by the schema and adds no new semantic detail beyond grouping the filters together.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the account's recent execution history, explicitly clarifying that past-date executions are not included. It also distinguishes itself from get_transactions, get_pending_orders, and get_trading_journal, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it says not to call this tool for past dates like 'yesterday's execution price', and directs the agent to get_transactions after settlement. It also names get_pending_orders for unfilled orders and get_trading_journal for daily per-stock aggregation, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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