Skip to main content
Glama

APICK Business

by app.apick

부동산 실거래가 조회

land_rt_price
Read-only

Look up real estate transaction price records in Korea by region, property type, and year. 시/도·시/군/구, 부동산 유형, 년도를 지정해 부동산 실거래 이력을 조회합니다. addr1 값이 잘못되면 응답의 options 필드로 선택 가능한 지역 목록을 안내합니다. [호출당 100포인트]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes유형 코드 A~H 중 하나. A:아파트, B:연립/다세대, C:단독/다가구, D:오피스텔, E:분양/입주권, F:상업/업무용, G:토지, H:공장/창고등
yearYes조회 년도 (1950 ~ 현재 년도, 예: 2025)
addr1Yes도/광역시/특별시 정식 명칭 (예: 서울특별시, 경기도, 부산광역시)
addr2Yes시/군/구 (예: 금천구)

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific error response behavior (options field with selectable regions when addr1 is invalid) and cost per call, which are beyond 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description includes both English and Korean versions of the same content, which is redundant. It's short but not optimally concise; could omit duplication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not describe the success response structure beyond the error case. It covers purpose, parameters, error handling, and cost but lacks return format details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100%), so baseline 3. The description mentions region/property type/year but doesn't add new semantic details. The error behavior for addr1 is helpful but not parameter definition.

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 looks up real estate transaction prices in Korea by region, property type, and year, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 provides clear context for when to use (when needing transaction price records), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The error-handling note about addr1 adds practical guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APICK Business toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources