Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim

분양가 적정성 분석 — 분양가 vs 주변 실거래 시세

realty_presale_vs_market
Read-onlyIdempotent

청약(분양) 공고의 분양가가 주변 실거래 시세 대비 싼지/비싼지를 주택형별로 계산한다. "이 청약 넣을 만해?", "분양가 적정해?"류 질문의 정량 근거 — 웹검색으로는 못 하는 분양가×실거래 조인 계산이 이 도구의 존재 이유다.

공고 특정: house_manage_no가 없으면 region+keyword로 검색하고, 여러 건이면
후보 목록을 돌려주니 하나를 골라 다시 호출하라(추측해서 고르지 않는다).
한계(지어내지 말 것): 실거래 평균은 해당 지역 全단지(구축 포함) 기준이라 신축
프리미엄이 반영되지 않았다. 청약 경쟁률·당첨 가점 커트라인은 이 도구가 아니라
realty_subscription_odds에 있다("넣을 만해?"엔 둘을 같이 써라).
기준선 우선순위: market_avg는 **이상치 미필터** 지역 평균이다 — 결론에는
comparison_by_size[].comparable_complexes(반경 내 급 맞는 단지 실거래)를 우선하고,
지역 수준 교차확인은 realty_area_price_bands(이상치 필터·중앙값)로 하라.
이 도구는 **현재 공고 1건의 적정성**이다 — 같은 지역 공고들의 분양가 시계열
("기다릴수록 얼마씩 올랐나")은 realty_presale_price_trend.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNo실거래 비교 창(개월) (허용 범위 3~24)
regionNo시도 (예: 서울, 경기, 세종)
keywordNo단지명·주소 부분일치 (예: '우미린', '5-2생활권', '다솜동')
house_manage_noNorealty_presale 응답의 공고 관리번호 — 알면 이걸로 특정하는 게 정확

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false), so the description's value is in adding behavior beyond that. It discloses that market_avg is an unfiltered regional mean, that comparable_complexes should be prioritized, and that the tool limits itself to the current notice's adequacy. It also warns not to guess when multiple candidates are returned.

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 description is long but every sentence contributes specific information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through parameter handling, limitations, baseline prioritization, and sibling separation. The use of separators and explicit cross-references means nothing here is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the important result fields and how to interpret them: comparable_complexes are preferred, market_avg is an unfiltered average, and regional cross-checking uses area_price_bands. Combined with the listed caveats and alternatives, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret output correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema has 100% parameter description coverage, the tool description adds meaningful parameter guidance: if house_manage_no is missing, search with region+keyword; if multiple candidates are returned, return the list and ask the user to choose rather than guessing. This explains parameter interactions beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes whether the presale price of a subscription notice is cheap or expensive relative to surrounding actual transaction prices, by housing type. It also explicitly distinguishes this from other tools by framing it as a presale-price × transaction-price join that web search cannot do, which differentiates it 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for 'should I apply for this?' and 'is the presale price reasonable?' questions. It also names alternatives for competing questions: realty_subscription_odds for competition odds and cutoff scores, realty_area_price_bands for regional cross-check, and realty_presale_price_trend for time series.

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