account_realnameLook up the account holder name of a Korean bank account. 대한민국 은행 계좌의 예금주명을 조회합니다. 송금 전 예금주 확인 등에 사용합니다. bank_code 또는 bank_name 중 하나는 입력해야 합니다. [호출당 60포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank_code | No | 은행 코드 (bank_code Tool로 조회 가능, 예: 004) | |
| bank_name | No | 은행명 (예: 국민). bank_code 대신 입력 가능 | |
| account_num | Yes | 계좌번호 (숫자만, 하이픈 제외) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only lookup. It adds value by disclosing the per-call cost ('[호출당 60포인트]') and the requirement to provide at least one of bank_code/bank_name. No contradiction with 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 concise but includes both English and Korean versions of the same information, which is slightly redundant. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the cost note is useful. Each sentence earns 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?
For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage scenario, input constraints, and cost. Given the sibling tools and annotations, the information is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, and the description supplements them by clarifying the XOR relationship between bank_code and bank_name, and references the bank_code Tool for obtaining codes. This adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Look up the account holder name of a Korean bank account,' specifying the verb (look up) and resource (account holder name). It is distinct from sibling tools like bank_code (lookup bank codes) and transfer_1won (send 1 won for verification).
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 usage context with '송금 전 예금주 확인 등에 사용합니다' (used for confirming account holder before remittance) and a required condition: 'bank_code 또는 bank_name 중 하나는 입력해야 합니다' (either bank_code or bank_name must be entered). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with transfer_1won, which might serve a similar verification purpose, so it lacks explicit exclusion.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing bank codes, looking up account holder names, and sending a 1-won verification deposit. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: 'bank_code' and 'account_realname' are noun phrases while 'transfer_1won' is a verb phrase. Still readable and predictable within this small set.
With exactly 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of Korean bank account verification. Each tool is necessary and earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full verification workflow: lookup bank codes, check account holder, and perform the 1-won verification transfer. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.