identi_card_image4Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate from an image or PDF file. 주민등록등본 이미지 또는 PDF 파일을 업로드하면 문서확인번호 등 기재 정보를 자동 인식해 진위 여부를 확인합니다. 텍스트 입력 없이 파일 하나만 전달하면 됩니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 60포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_url | Yes | 다운로드 가능한 https URL (허용 형식: image/jpeg, image/png, application/pdf) (최대 50MB) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Verify' action aligns with that. The description adds a compliance note about legal basis and a cost note (60 points per call), which are useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the return format or failure behavior, so the extra context is useful but limited.
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, with five short sentences in two languages. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then covers the input type, simplicity, legal condition, and cost. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, though the cost note could arguably live in annotations. No wasted words.
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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose, input, and usage conditions. However, it never describes what the verification response looks like, and it fails to clarify why this specific tool (identi_card_image4) differs from identi_card_image1/2/3/5. This leaves an important gap for an agent navigating a large family of similar tools.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter image_url 100%, including allowed formats and size limits. The description only repeats that input is an image or PDF, adding no new semantic detail about the parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate' and specifies the input type (image/PDF). However, it does not differentiate among the many sibling image tools (identi_card_image1..5), so an agent cannot tell which image variant to invoke based on the description alone.
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 mentions a legal condition ('only use with consent or other legitimate basis') and says 'no text input, just one file', but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like identi_card1..5 or identi_card_image1..5. It neither names alternatives nor states exclusion criteria, leaving tool selection ambiguous among the image variants.
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 distinct purpose: masking (hide_rrn), text-based verification (identi_cardN), image-based verification (identi_card_imageN), extraction with masking (identity_document_*), and name/RRN matching (name_rrn_auth). Within each group, the document type is clearly specified, so there is no ambiguity between tools.
Naming follows clear patterns: identi_card* for verification (with _image for image-based), identity_document_* for extraction, and descriptive names like hide_rrn and name_rrn_auth. While the prefixes differ across functional groups, each group is internally consistent and the names are readable and predictable.
16 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the server's scope, covering five document types with two verification modes (text and image), four extraction/masking tools, a generic masking tool, and a name/RRN auth check. Each tool fills a needed role, though the number is slightly elevated due to the text/image split.
The server covers the core operations for identity document verification and extraction across all major Korean ID types. A minor gap is the lack of an extraction/masking tool for the resident registration certificate (identi_card4), but this is not a critical omission given the existing verification and masking capabilities.