계정 정보 조회
infoRead-only
Check your APICK account balance and status. 현재 인증 키에 연결된 APICK 계정의 잔여 포인트와 계정 상태 정보를 조회합니다. 무료입니다. [무료]
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
APICK
by app.apick
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is pre-covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is free ('무료입니다'), tied to the current authentication key, and returns balance and status information. This is useful for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the English sentence, making the purpose immediately clear. However, '무료입니다' and '[무료]' are redundant (both say 'free'), which is a minor waste of tokens. Still concise overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does (checks balance/status), the scope (current auth key), and the fact that it is free. It doesn't specify the exact output format, but for such a simple info tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to explain, and the description adds no misleading information. The schema coverage is 100%, making parameter context unnecessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking APICK account balance and status. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('APICK account'), and the Korean text adds detail about querying remaining points and account status. This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (when checking account balance/status). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes; even within families like identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5, the text-input vs image-input distinction is clear. However, the sheer number of tools and some near-synonyms (e.g., ocr_identi1 vs identi_card_image1) could cause occasional misselection, but descriptions mitigate this.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming follows a loose verb-first pattern (check_, crawl_, download_, draw_, etc.) but includes significant deviations: bare nouns (bank_code, location, whois), numbered variants (identi_card1, identi_card_image1), and mixed prefixes (ocr_, identity_, etc.). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and predictable within functional clusters.
Tool Count3/5
80 tools is far above the typical 3-15, but the server is a broad API aggregator covering many independent domains (banking, ID verification, media conversion, search, LLM, etc.), so the high count is somewhat justified. Still, the sheer number makes the toolkit feel unwieldy and hard to navigate, placing it at the high end of acceptable.
Completeness4/5
Within its stated purpose as a general-purpose utility API, the toolset covers a wide array of common task families: identity document verification (text and image), OCR field extraction, media conversion, web/search, domain/IP lookup, and LLM chat. Most operations have both get and act variants (e.g., set/get watermark, parcel_tracking/auto), with few obvious dead ends for typical use cases.