parcel_tracking_autoTrack a Korean parcel in real time with automatic carrier detection from the tracking number alone. 택배사 지정 없이 운송장번호만으로 택배사를 자동 판별해 실시간 배송현황을 조회합니다. 택배사를 이미 아는 경우에는 parcel_tracking Tool이 더 정확합니다. [호출당 10포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackingNumber | Yes | 운송장번호 (택배사 지정 없이 형식만으로 자동 판별) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds practical context including real-time behavior, automatic carrier detection, per-call cost (10 points), and an accuracy trade-off, without contradicting annotations. It does not detail return format, but the additions go beyond the structured metadata.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and cost. It includes a bilingual repetition (English and Korean) which is slightly redundant for a bilingual audience but still efficient overall, earning a 4 rather than 5.
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 tool with one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, real-time retrieval, and cost. It also mentions delivery status output, which compensates for the lack of output schema. Minor gaps like failure behavior are not critical here.
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%, so the schema fully documents the trackingNumber parameter. The description reinforces that only the tracking number is needed and that carrier detection is automatic, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tracks Korean parcels in real time with automatic carrier detection, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling parcel_tracking tool by emphasizing automatic detection, satisfying sibling differentiation.
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 explicit guidance: use this tool when the carrier is unknown, and use parcel_tracking if the carrier is already known. This directly addresses when-to-use vs. alternatives, exceeding minimal requirements.
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.