한국은행 경제통계를 조회합니다.
Args:
indicator: 경제지표명. 지원 항목: 기준금리, 소비자물가지수, 실업률, GDP성장률, 수출액, 수입액, 원달러환율, 코스피
period: 조회기간. "latest"(최근 12개월), "2025"(특정연도), "202501-202602"(기간지정)
Returns:
해당 경제지표의 시계열 데이터
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | latest | |
| indicator | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only inquiry via '조회' and states the return shape as time-series data, but it does not discuss data latency, possible gaps in coverage, or error/edge-case behavior. Useful but not fully transparent.
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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every part adds relevant information, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a low-complexity, two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, and the return type. Minor gaps remain around data units/frequency and potential error behavior, but these are not critical given the output schema and simple API.
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%, but the description fully compensates: indicator lists all supported values, and period gives explicit format examples including 'latest', '2025', and '202501-202602'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
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 and resource: querying Bank of Korea economic statistics. It further enumerates supported indicators, and those indicators clearly distinguish this tool from its unrelated siblings (weather, air quality, real estate, business registration).
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?
Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when Bank of Korea economic indicators are needed and the supported indicator list signals applicability. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and sibling list_supported_options is not referenced.
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.