Skip to main content
Glama

order_contracts

Track single sales and supply contracts from Korean public companies, including contract amounts, revenue impact, and counterparty details. Automatically deduplicate amendments and detect changes in contract values.

Instructions

desc: 회사의 수주(단일판매·공급계약체결) 추적 — 계약금액·매출액 대비%·상대방·계약기간. 적자 디폴트인 코스닥 바이오/기술주에서 수주 = 미래 매출 가시성 시그널. 기재정정(변경계약) 자동 dedup + 증액/감액 diff. when: 얼마짜리 수주를 따냈나, 수주가 매출 대비 얼마나 큰가(적자기업 가시성), 최근 수주 모멘텀, 외부 수주 vs 계열 일감(공시 관계필드 기준), 계약 해지, 수주 증액/감액 변경. 지분 인수/매각(타법인주식)은 corporate_deals. rule: DART list.json I001 — 단일판매ㆍ공급계약체결/해지 (일반+자율공시 모두 I001, 자회사 변형 포함). 본문 파싱: 계약금액(단위 원/천원/백만원 환산)·최근매출액·매출액대비%·상대방·관계(외부/계열)·계약기간. dedup: (계약명+상대방) 그룹 + 정정본 정정전금액으로 원본↔정정 매칭(같은 키라도 금액 체인 불일치 시 별개). 기본 lookback 24개월. max_documents: 본문 파싱 상한 (기본 30). ref: corporate_deals (타법인주식 지분 인수/매각), financial_metrics (매출·수익성), evidence (원문 확인)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNomd
companyYes
end_dateNo
start_dateNo
max_documentsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully carries the burden: discloses data source (DART list.json I001), parsing logic, dedup mechanism, lookback period (24 months), and max_documents limit. No contradictions.

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 long but well-structured with sections (desc, when, rule, ref). Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given complexity and presence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and references sibling tools. No major gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'max_documents' and implicitly covers date parameters via lookback. However, 'company' and 'format' are not explicitly described, leaving a minor gap.

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 clearly states it tracks contracts (수주) with specific details. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'corporate_deals' which covers equity investments.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'when:' section lists explicit usage scenarios, and contraindications are provided (e.g., equity investments use 'corporate_deals'). Provides clear guidance on when to use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MarcoYou/open-proxy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server