Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim

[유료] 지역 비교

realty_compare_regions
Read-onlyIdempotent

[유료] 여러 지역의 매매·전세 시세와 추이를 나란히 비교한다. 갈아타기·투자처 비교용.

"어디가 제일 ○○해?"류 순위·탐색 질문은 무료 realty_region_rankings로 먼저 좁혀라 —
이 도구는 비교 대상이 정해졌을 때 쓴다.

⚠️ 지역별 `warning_baseline`·`warning_dispersion`을 avg_price보다 먼저 읽어라 —
이 소스는 이상치 미필터·단지급 혼합이라 avg_price를 그대로 "그 지역 시세"로 인용하면
특정 단지와의 비교 결론이 뒤집힌다(realty_region_price_stats와 같은 공시다).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNo추이 개월 수 (허용 범위 1~60)
regionsYes비교할 시군구 2개 이상 — 배열(['강남구','서초구']) 또는 쉼표 문자열('강남구,서초구')

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the bar is lower — but the description adds genuinely non-schema-discoverable behavior: the tool is paid, the source has unfiltered outliers and complex-level mixed data, and avg_price must not be cited directly (warning_baseline/warning_dispersion should be read first). This is the kind of data-quality disclosure that prevents an agent from drawing reversed conclusions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The structure is front-loaded: purpose first, then when-not/when-to, then the critical warning. Every section earns its place; only slight density exists in the warning paragraph, which elaborates the 'conclusion can flip' scenario with an example. Slightly wordy but well-organized and non-redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With 2 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key return fields (avg_price, warning_baseline, warning_dispersion) and their priority, along with the paid status and the decision boundary against rankings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret its core warning is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: regions (2+ targets, array or comma-string) and months (1–60, default 12) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema; the multi-region implication ('여러 지역') restates what the schema already requires. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource: comparing 매매·전세 시세와 추이 for multiple regions side by side. It explicitly differentiates itself from realty_region_rankings (rank/exploration questions) and notes the same data notice as realty_region_price_stats, so an agent can pick this tool apart from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when NOT to use it ('어디가 제일 ○○해?' exploratory questions should go to 무료 realty_region_rankings first) and when to use it (when comparison targets are already decided). This is a clear when/when-not rule with the alternative named, requiring zero inference.

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

All korea-realty 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
Disambiguation3/5

The set has very explicit cross-tool guidance and each tool is often given a specific 'role', but there are still many overlapping clusters: auction search vs auction list vs auction detail, regional price bands vs price stats vs rankings, and court auction rate vs public auction rate. The descriptions reduce misselection, but with 51 tools including pairs like `fetch` and `realty_get_auction_case`, confusion is still likely for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean `realty_` prefix and use consistent snake_case noun-phrases or verb-noun patterns, e.g. `realty_search_auctions`, `realty_get_auction_case`, `realty_presale_cost`. The exceptions are the generic `fetch`, `search`, and `report_issue`, which break the uniform prefixed convention but are only a small minor deviation from an otherwise consistent naming system.

Tool Count1/5

51 tools far exceeds the recommended threshold, even for a deliberately broad real-estate area; it is effectively an extreme number for a single MCP server. The tool count becomes the hardest usability problem, since agents must handle many tightly related micro-tools instead of interacting with a smaller, more manageable surface.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively complete range: auction and public-auction workflows, apartment and non-apartment market, presale/cheongyak processes, tax and loan rules, subscription scoring, redevelopment, demographics, supply, POI, and even a reporting and routing tool. Boundaries and unsupported cases are explicitly documented, so there are no major obvious dead ends.

Resources