Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim

단지 평형별 전월세 시세

realty_complex_rent_by_pyeong
Read-onlyIdempotent

단지의 평형별 전세 보증금·월세 중앙값을 조회한다. 전세가율(전세÷매매) 계산의 전세 축이다.

complex_key·complex_name 중 하나는 필수. 부분일치는 동명 단지가 섞일 수 있으니
가능하면 realty_search_complexes로 complex_key를 먼저 특정하라.
행 키 supply_pyeong은 **분양평**(전용㎡ ÷ 3.305 ÷ 0.745 반올림) 기준이다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
complex_keyNo정확한 단지 키 — realty_search_complexes가 돌려주는 complex_key
compare_saleNo같은 12개월 창의 **매매가를 함께 뽑아 전세가율·전월세 전환율·갭을 계산**한다(기본 켬). 종전엔 note가 '매매를 period_months=12로 따로 불러 나눠라'라고만 지시해 호출자가 손으로 했고, 창을 안 맞추면 전세가율이 수 %p 왜곡됐다 — 그 계산을 서버가 진다
complex_nameNo키를 모를 때 단지명 부분일치

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, so the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are keyed by 분양평 using the documented formula, partial-name matches carry ambiguity risk, and compare_sale computes sale-related ratios server-side rather than requiring manual calls. These are useful behavioral disclosures.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The main description is three dense sentences: purpose first, usage requirement second, data semantics third. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, it conveys the output nature (median jeonse deposit/monthly rent), the mandatory key nuance, and the pyeong unit definition. Slightly missing is an explicit note on the returned row shape or precedence if both keys are provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond it by declaring a mutual one-key-requirement that the schema itself leaves unenforced (required=0) and by tying the supply_pyeong row key to the pyeong conversion formula. compare_sale's schema description already explains its calculation semantics well.

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 description opens with a specific verb plus resource: '단지의 평형별 전세 보증금·월세 중앙값을 조회한다'. It further situates the output as '전세가율(전세÷매매) 계산의 전세 축', which clearly distinguishes this read tool from sibling price/sale tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent to supply complex_key or complex_name, warns that partial name matches can mix same-name complexes, and recommends resolving complex_key via realty_search_complexes first. It does not spell out hard when-not-to-use cases against other rent/price siblings, but the context is clear.

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