Skip to main content
Glama

사업장 건물 실거래 조회

opendata__nrg__trades

공공데이터포털에 개방된 상업업무용 부동산 매매 실거래가(data.go.kr 15126463)를 주소로 조회합니다. 주소를 도로명주소 검색으로 지번에 맞춘 뒤 미리 받아 둔 자료에서 같은 지번의 거래(계약일, 거래금액, 건물 주용도, 면적, 층, 거래유형, 해제 여부)를 trades 에 돌려주고, 받아 둔 달과 빠진 달은 coverage 에, 찾은 주소 후보는 address 에 담습니다. 기간은 endYm(기본 이번 달)부터 months(기본 12개월)만큼이며, 그 시군구의 요청 기간을 아직 받아 두지 않았으면 지금 조회 불가로 답합니다. 사업자등록번호만 주면 등록된 소재지를 찾아 조회합니다. 별도 연동 없이 사용할 수 있습니다. Files: a document generated from this result, as Excel (xlsx) only when requested in output_formats, listed in artifacts[] of the result with a download_url that works for 15 minutes; each file is kept for 7 days. If a link has expired, call xdata__job__result with the job_id from the result for fresh links. For an anonymous result, keep its private recovery_receipt and send it with the original job_id or pack_run_id to xdata__job__result. It grants access to that result only, until the original file retention expires. Do not publish it. Losing it cannot be repaired by signing up. The receipt also works if the client later signs in; it does not grant access to other results. Without a receipt, results require the original account and lane. For an authenticated call, generate and save request_idempotency_key before the first request. Reuse it with the same arguments only to recover that request after a lost response; use a new key for a new execution. Without it, calling again remains a new request. This optional key is not available to anonymous taste calls. Keep any provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged; it is a different field. 호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 XBOSS 작업을 생성하고 처리 결과를 저장합니다. 기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로 이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다. 기관 데이터 변경은 도구별 실행 내용과 기존 확인 절차를 따릅니다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "opendata__nrg__trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
biznoNo사업자등록번호 10자리(하이픈 허용). address 가 없을 때 등록된 소재지를 찾는 데 씁니다.
endYmNo조회 기간의 끝 달 YYYYMM(선택, 기본 이번 달).
monthsNo조회 기간(개월, 선택, 기본 12). endYm 부터 거슬러 셉니다.
addressNo사업장 주소(도로명 또는 지번, 건물번호까지). address 와 bizno 가운데 하나 이상.
output_formatsNo선택 입력입니다. 결과를 엑셀(xlsx) 파일로도 받으려면 입력해 주세요. 파일은 결과의 artifacts[] 에 실립니다. 비워 두면 데이터만 받습니다.
request_idempotency_keyNoOptional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious traits: it only answers from pre-fetched data and returns '조회 불가' when the sigungu/period has not been fetched, it consumes 1 token per call, and it explicitly warns that despite being a query this call is not purely read-only (an XBOSS job is created and results stored) — consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It also covers file retention (7 days), 15-minute download_url validity, and recovery_receipt semantics for anonymous results. Some of this is generic boilerplate, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The Korean opening is well front-loaded and information-dense, but the bulk of the text is generic English boilerplate about artifacts, recovery receipts, idempotency keys, and lane/account rules that is largely tool-agnostic and repeated elsewhere. Several sentences (e.g., 'Keep any provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged') do not earn their place in a read-oriented real-transaction lookup description, burying the tool-specific constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (trades, coverage, address) and the artifact/file behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs to consume results. The non-read-only nature, token cost, and pre-fetch coverage limitation are all disclosed, which is sufficient for a 6-parameter, no-required-parameter tool. Only the precise structure of 'coverage' and error responses remain underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains bizno, endYm, months, address, output_formats, and request_idempotency_key. The description adds only marginal meaning: that months counts back from endYm and that xlsx output lands in artifacts[] with a download_url. That is a small increment over structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (조회) and a specific dataset (상업업무용 부동산 매매 실거래가, data.go.kr 15126463), and states the lookup key (주소, or 사업자등록번호 as a fallback). It also enumerates the returned fields (계약일, 거래금액, 건물 주용도, 면적, 층, 거래유형, 해제 여부), so an agent knows exactly what resource it is fetching. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling registry tools such as opendata__bld__register, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives input-selection guidance — supply address, or bizno alone and the registered site address is resolved — and notes it works without a separate integration. It does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling building/property tools, nor any exclusions beyond the implicit 'address or bizno' rule. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly routed.

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.

Resources