calculate_contract_penaltySKT·KT·LG U+ 선택약정 할인반환금 또는 공시지원금 반환액의 기본 참고값을 계산합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrier | Yes | ||
| elapsedDays | No | ||
| penaltyType | Yes | ||
| elapsedMonths | No | ||
| contractMonths | No | ||
| receivedSubsidy | No | ||
| accumulatedDiscount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds limited context by calling the result a 'basic reference value' rather than an official amount, but it does not disclose parameter dependencies, required inputs per penalty type, formula behavior, or output characteristics.
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 concise sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the operation and scope. However, it is too sparse to cover the semantic load of a 7-parameter calculator, so brevity borders on under-specification.
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 7-parameter calculator with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits conditional parameter usage, the meaning of elapsed time units, how subsidy/discount values factor in, and what the returned 'reference value' looks like.
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 compensate. It maps penaltyType values to concepts (선택약정 vs 공시지원금) and carrier values to SKT/KT/LG U+, but it does not clarify elapsedDays versus elapsedMonths, contractMonths, receivedSubsidy, accumulatedDiscount, or which parameters are relevant for each penalty type.
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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('계산합니다') and the resource (SKT·KT·LG U+ 선택약정 할인반환금 또는 공시지원금 반환액). It makes the tool's domain and function obvious, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like calculate_combo_discount or calculate_mobile_tco.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says it computes a '기본 참고값' (basic reference value), which suggests scope but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when another sibling would be the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct target: three separate calculation types (combo discount, contract penalty, mobile TCO), one evidence/metadata lookup, and two searches separated by domain (mobile deals vs general products). The descriptions give precise input and return scope, so an agent is unlikely to mix them up.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: calculate_*, search_*, and get_*. The objects are specific and readable, and there is no mixing of camelCase or vague verbs.
6 tools is well-scoped for a specialized pricing and purchase-decision service. Each tool contributes a distinct capability, and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy.
The tool set covers the main user journeys for Korean mobile purchase cost analysis: calculating TCO, penalties, and combo discounts, retrieving calculation evidence, and searching verified deals/products. There are no obvious dead ends within the stated domain.