get_korea_real_estate
Get Korean apartment transaction records (MOLIT) in English.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| yyyymm | No |
Get Korean apartment transaction records (MOLIT) in English.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| yyyymm | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states what it does (get records) but does not disclose if it is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. For a read operation, basic guarantee of safety is missing.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with key information. Every word contributes to the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to add parameter hints.
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's simplicity (2 string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the output format, potential errors, or parameter constraints, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'apartment transaction records' but does not clarify the expected format for 'region' (e.g., city/county) or 'yyyymm' (e.g., '202401'), nor provide examples. This leaves the agent to guess.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Korean apartment transaction records', and the data source 'MOLIT' with language 'English'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_korea_weather or get_korean_stock_prices, but the resource is specific enough.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but create_buy_ship_cart_order and create_direct_buy_ship_order are nearly identical, causing potential confusion. Additionally, build_buyer_discovery_queue and build_cash_sprint_packet overlap in targeting buyer segments.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (build_, get_, create_, search_) with consistent snake_case, making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
With 26 tools covering diverse domains (stock market, real estate, tourism, sourcing, etc.), the scope feels broad and somewhat bloated. A more focused set would improve coherence.
The tool set covers many aspects of Korea data and seller workflows, but notable gaps exist: no tools for actual listing posting, sending communications, or completing transactions, as many build_ tools explicitly exclude those steps.