opinet-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents return fields (주유소ID, 상호, 주소, 가격, KATEC 좌표) which substitutes for missing output schema. However, lacks details on sort order (presumably by ascending price), rate limits, or error handling when no stations exist.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads core action and scope; second sentence specifies return payload. Every word earns its place.

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 100% input schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by listing return fields. Complete for a list-query tool, though mentioning that results are sorted by price ascending would provide final completeness given the 'lowest' claim.

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 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). Per rubric, baseline is 3. Description mentions '최대 20곳' and regional scoping which maps to cnt/area parameters, but does not add semantic value (e.g., fuel type meanings for prodcd codes) beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb '조회합니다' (queries/retrieves) with clear resource '최저가 주유소' (lowest-price gas stations). The scope '최대 20곳' (max 20) and geographic flexibility '전국 또는 특정 지역' (nationwide or specific region) effectively distinguishes this from siblings like get_national_average_price and get_sido_average_price.

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance through scope description (nationwide vs. regional, top 20 results), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., 'use this to find cheapest stations, use get_station_detail for specific station info'). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.