check_email_validValidate email syntax, MX availability, and free or disposable domain status. 이메일 형식, MX 수신 가능 여부, 무료·일회용 메일 여부를 검사합니다. [호출당 10포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 이메일 주소 (예: sample.user@gmail.com) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact checks (syntax, MX, disposable domain) and disclosing the per-call cost of 10 points, which is not in the annotations.
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 two sentences (English and Korean) plus a cost note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information with no fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the cost, and the validation scope. It omits return format details, but given the simplicity and annotations, the missing information is not a significant gap.
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 single parameter 'email' is fully described in the schema with an example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 validates email syntax, MX availability, and free or disposable domain status, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_phone_valid and check_spam_number, which target different validation types.
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 implies the tool is for email validation through its explicit checks, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools include other validation checks, the usage context is implied rather than stated.
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 target distinct resources and actions, but there is potential overlap between biz_detail and venture_biz_info, and the PCCC tools (req_pccc, get_pccc, check_pccc) require careful reading. Descriptions are clear enough to avoid major misselection.
Tool names mix verb-led patterns (check_*, get_*, req_*, search_*) with noun-phrase patterns (biz_detail, holiday_info, land_rt_price, parcel_tracking). This inconsistency makes it less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme, though names remain readable.
With 16 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad scope of the API—spanning business info, personal validation, car history, parcel tracking, and address search—justifies the count. No tool feels redundant.
The API covers its core verification workflows, but notable gaps exist: no tool for listing parcel carriers despite being referenced in parcel_tracking, no business search by name, and car history only covers flooding and scrap, missing general accident records. These gaps could limit agent workflows.