check_pcccVerify that a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC) matches the given name, zip code, and phone number. 이름, 개인통관고유부호, 우편번호, 전화번호를 입력하여 개인통관부호 일치 여부를 검증합니다. 해외직구 주문 정보 검증 등에 사용합니다. [호출당 20포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | 우편번호 (5자리, 예: 12345) | |
| name | Yes | 이름 | |
| pccc | Yes | 개인통관고유부호 (P + 숫자 12자리, 예: P123456789012) | |
| phone | Yes | 전화번호 (숫자만, 예: 01012341234) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the cost per call '[호출당 20포인트]' and the specific matching logic. This goes beyond the annotation by informing the agent of the business cost, while being consistent with read-only behavior.
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 repeats itself: the English sentence and the Korean sentence convey the same information redundantly. While the cost note is useful, the duplication wastes space and does not meet the standard of every sentence earning its place.
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?
The description covers purpose, input, and a use case, but it does not explain the return value or expected output (e.g., Yes/No or match status). Given there is no output schema, this is a noticeable gap. It also does not clarify relationships with siblings like get_pccc, making moderate completeness overall.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having type and format descriptions (e.g., 'PCCC: P + 숫자 12자리'). The description only lists the same parameters without adding new semantic constraints or relationships, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action: 'Verify that a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC) matches the given name, zip code, and phone number.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pccc and req_pccc by focusing on verification rather than retrieval or registration.
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 a clear use case: '해외직구 주문 정보 검증 등에 사용합니다' (used for verifying overseas direct purchase order information). This gives context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.