req_pcccRequest SMS verification to retrieve a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC). 개인통관고유부호 조회를 위한 본인 인증을 요청합니다. 인증번호 6자리가 문자(SMS)로 발송되며, 응답의 auth_key와 수신한 인증번호를 get_pccc Tool에 입력해 부호를 조회합니다. [호출당 30포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 이름 | |
| rrn1 | Yes | 주민등록번호 앞 6자리 | |
| rrn2 | Yes | 주민등록번호 뒤 7자리 | |
| phone | Yes | 휴대전화 번호 (본인 명의, 숫자만) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations: it sends an SMS with a 6-digit code, incurs a cost of 30 points per call, and returns an auth_key that must be used with get_pccc. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and provides useful operational detail. It doesn't mention potential side effects like SMS expiration, but the added context is helpful.
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 compact: two sentences plus a cost note, with the English summary front-loaded and the Korean explanation following. Every sentence earns its place by conveying a key aspect: purpose, flow, and cost. No redundant or filler content.
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, the description adequately explains the request flow and the next step (using get_pccc). However, it omits details about the exact response structure beyond auth_key, possible error cases, or code expiration, which are relevant for a multi-step authentication process. It's good but not fully comprehensive.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear Korean descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond noting that these parameters form the identity verification request, but it doesn't deepen understanding of individual parameter meanings or formatting beyond what the schema already says.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Request SMS verification') and resource (Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_pccc by positioning it as the required prerequisite authentication step. It's unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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 provides clear context by explaining the two-step workflow: call this tool first, then use the received auth_key and SMS code with get_pccc. It implies when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or situations when this tool should not be used.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.