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 discloses that a 6-digit verification code is sent via SMS, that points are charged per call, and that the response provides an auth_key. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (e.g., openWorldHint=true), such as the external SMS side effect and the workflow dependency on get_pccc.
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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes the critical workflow and cost. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.
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 provides a complete picture of the two-step PCCC retrieval process, referencing get_pccc and the need for auth_key and SMS code. While it doesn't cover error scenarios or auth_key expiry, these are not essential for basic tool invocation and are not expected without an output schema.
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?
Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra semantic value. It does confirm the parameters are used for identity verification, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already states.
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 function: requesting SMS verification to retrieve a PCCC. It distinguishes itself from get_pccc by explicitly describing the two-step flow (auth_key + received code -> get_pccc), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explains the intended sequence: call this tool first, then use get_pccc with the auth_key and SMS code. It clearly defines when to use this tool within the larger PCCC retrieval process, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions (e.g., when an auth_key already exists).
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.