realty_reconstruction[유료] 건령·거래활성 기반 재건축 후보 스크리닝 상위 단지를 조회한다.
점수 = 건령(최대 70, 30년 연한 기준) + 최근 12개월 거래활성 전국 백분위(최대 30).
사업성(용적률·대지지분·안전진단·조합 단계)은 반영되지 않는다 — 후보 발굴용이지
투자 판단 근거가 아니며, 응답의 disclaimer를 사용자에게 그대로 전하라.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | (허용 범위 1~50) | |
| region | No | 지역명 — 다른 도구와 같은 인자 이름. district와 같은 뜻이다(둘 중 하나만) | |
| district | No | 지역명 (예: 서울, 구로구). 비우면 전국 상위 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / regionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "지역명 — 다른 도구와 같은 인자 이름. district와 같은 뜻이다(둘 중 하나만)",
+ "title": "Region"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "realty_reconstructionDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"(허용 범위 1~50)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding context beyond them: the exact scoring formula, the explicit disclosure that feasibility factors (용적률, 대지지분, 안전진단, 조합 단계) are excluded, and the requirement to relay the response disclaimer verbatim. Auth/cost implications of '[유료]' are only implied by the title, not explained.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the formula, then the limitation. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations; nothing is padded.
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 no output schema, the description does enough to set expectations: it reveals the score composition, that ranking is national-by-default, and that the response carries a disclaimer. It could say more about the shape of the returned list (fields, ordering guarantees), which is the one remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, region, and district (including the region/district synonymy). The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g. how to format a district, or what happens when limit is large), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('재건축 후보 스크리닝 상위 단지를 조회한다') and even enumerates the exact ranking inputs (building age + 12-month transaction percentile). It is precise about what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling realty_redevelopment, so an agent must guess which one to pick.
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?
It gives a clear scope boundary: '후보 발굴용이지 투자 판단 근거가 아니며' explicitly tells the agent this is for candidate discovery, not investment judgment, and instructs relaying the disclaimer. What's missing is naming the alternative sibling (e.g. realty_redevelopment or realty_remodel_feasibility) that would be appropriate for feasibility questions.
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.