Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

분양 총 소요자금 계산 — 중도금 이자·취득세·층별 총액

realty_presale_cost
Read-onlyIdempotent

분양 한 건의 층별 총 소요자금(분양가·발코니·중도금이자·취득세)을 계산한다.

공고 원문(팩트시트) 기반 **결정론 계산**: 층별 분양가 + 발코니 확장비 + 회차별
중도금 이자(일할) + 취득세(표준세율) = 층별 총 소요자금. "이 분양 실제로 얼마 드나"의
자리다 — 클라이언트마다 손계산하면 입주일 가정 하나로 백만원대가 갈린다(실측 124만원).

경계(신고 #43의 선 그대로): 여기까지가 "공고+세법에서 결정론적으로 나오는 것"이다.
월 상환액·매수 vs 전세 손익분기는 개인 파라미터가 지배하므로 계산하지 않는다 — 전세
시세는 realty_complex_rent_by_pyeong으로 받아 클라이언트가 개인 가정을 얹어라.
자기자금·차주 조건을 **선언**받아 필요 대출액과 규제 상한 통과까지 판정하는 건
realty_presale_funding_plan이 한다. 세율표 자체는 realty_policy_rules가 근거 조문과 함께 준다(중과·감면 등
이 계산이 가정으로 제친 것들이 거기 있다 — assumptions를 반드시 사용자에게 전하라).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordNo단지명 일부 (공백 무관)
house_tyNo주택형 (예: '59', '84B') — 생략 시 공고의 주택형 목록을 돌려준다
movein_ymNo입주 년월 YYYYMM 덮어쓰기 — 공고에 입주예정이 없거나 다른 가정을 쓸 때
mid_rate_pctNo중도금 대출 연이율 %(기본 5.0 — 실제 금리는 공고·은행마다 다르다) (허용 범위 0 초과~20)
house_manage_noNo공고 관리번호 (realty_presale의 house_manage_no)
extra_options_krwNo발코니 외 유상옵션 합계(원) — realty_notice_facts의 옵션가에서 골라 넣어라

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "realty_presale_costDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / mid_rate_pct / description
      Previous value: -"중도금 대출 연이율 %(기본 5.0 — 실제 금리는 공고·은행마다 다르다)"New value: +"중도금 대출 연이율 %(기본 5.0 — 실제 금리는 공고·은행마다 다르다) (허용 범위 0 초과~20)"
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, but the description adds real behavioral context: the result is a deterministic fact-sheet computation, differing move-in assumptions can swing the total by ~1.24M KRW, and the computed assumptions (중과·감면 etc.) must be surfaced to the user. It stops short of describing the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the formula and the scope, then the boundary and cross-tool routing in a second block; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long, with heavy inline emphasis and a stray trailing quote character, but there is little true filler.

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 6-parameter, zero-required calculation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: inputs implied, deterministic basis, assumption caveat, and sibling handoffs. The one gap is that the return shape (per-floor breakdown fields) is only sketched as '층별 총액' rather than described.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds domain meaning beyond the schema: it frames mid_rate_pct and movein_ym as assumptions with material impact on the total and flags that acquisition tax uses the standard rate while heavier rates live in assumptions. That is genuine added semantics, not schema repetition.

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?

States a specific verb (계산한다) plus the resource and scope (분양 한 건의 층별 총 소요자금) and spells out the formula components (분양가·발코니·중도금이자·취득세). It also names the sibling tools it is not (realty_complex_rent_by_pyeong, realty_presale_funding_plan, realty_policy_rules), so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly draws the boundary: this tool computes only what is deterministically derivable from the notice plus tax law, and it states what it deliberately does NOT compute (월 상환액, 매수 vs 전세 손익분기) along with the alternative tools that do. The 'when not to use' guidance is unusually concrete.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources