특정 품목의 전국 도매시장 가격을 비교합니다.
Args:
product_keyword: 품목 키워드 (예: "사과", "딸기", "배추")
date: 정산일 (YYYY-MM-DD). 빈 문자열이면 오늘.
Returns:
전국 시장별 가격 비교 (평균가, 최고가, 최저가, 거래량)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| product_keyword | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (average, high, low, transaction volume) and the default behavior for the date parameter (empty string means today). However, it does not mention data freshness, market coverage, or error behavior, which could matter to an agent.
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?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Each line carries essential information with no redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has only two parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, the description provides enough invocation details: parameter meanings, format, default, and a summary of the return structure. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., invalid keywords) but this is not critical for a straightforward compare tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining both parameters in Korean: product_keyword with concrete examples ('사과', '딸기', '배추') and date with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 states a specific verb ('비교합니다' = compares) and resource ('전국 도매시장 가격' = nationwide wholesale market prices) for a specific item, which clearly indicates what the tool does. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_market_list by focusing on price comparison, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The use case is implied: use this when you need to compare nationwide wholesale market prices for a product keyword. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_price_trend or search_product_price, and no exclusions are mentioned.
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.