opinet-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the temporal scope ('현재'/current) and the 'return all if omitted' behavior for the sido parameter. However, lacks details on data freshness, currency/units, or whether the returned data is cached or real-time.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose; second clarifies optional parameter behavior. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool.

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% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the functional purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should describe the return structure (e.g., 'returns a list of provinces with average prices') to compensate for the missing structured metadata.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear Korean descriptions and examples (e.g., '01=서울, 02=경기'). Description mentions '시도코드 2자리' which aligns with schema but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

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?

Clear verb (조회합니다/retrieves) and resource (current gas station average price by province/city). Title and description use '시도별' (by province/city) which implicitly distinguishes from the national-level sibling tool, though explicit contrast with 'get_national_average_price' would strengthen it.

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 explicit guidance on optional parameter behavior (omitting sido returns all regions), which helps users understand the tool's filtering behavior. However, lacks guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_national_average_price or get_recent_7days_price.

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