get_korean_stock_prices
Get Korean stock OHLCV and traded value.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| adjusted | No | ||
| date_from | No |
kdata-gate
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the output type (OHLCV, traded value). It does not disclose whether data is for a single date or range, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief given the complexity of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter syntax, data formats, or return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (market, ticker, date_to, adjusted, date_from). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema docs.
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?
Description explicitly states it retrieves OHLCV and traded value for Korean stocks, making it clear what data the tool provides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on filings, flows, fundamentals, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_korean_stock_overview or get_korean_stock_fundamentals. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count3/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.