Skip to main content
Glama

ownership_structure

Analyze ownership structure of Korean stocks: identify largest shareholder, related party stakes, 5% block holders, and decompose co-holder groups. Query controlling stakes and active ownership signals.

Instructions

desc: 최대주주·특수관계인·5% 대량보유 지분 구조 + 공동보유자 분해. 자사주 detail은 treasury_share 별도. when: 지배력 구조, 최대주주 비중, 특수관계인 지분 합, 5% 활성 시그널, "OO의 N% 지분이 누구누구 공동보유냐 / 보고자 본인 지분은 얼마냐" 질의. rule: 사업보고서 DART 공식 API 우선. 5% 대량보유 목적은 최신 원문 보강. 변동신고서는 DART API 우선, KIND fallback. 5% 보고 헤드라인 지분율(ownership_pct)은 보고자 본인 + 특별관계자 합산임 — 본인만 보려면 reporter_self_pct, 공동보유자 내역은 co_holders[{name, ownership_pct, is_registry_holder}] 사용. co_holders_verified=False면 합계 미검증이라 원문 대조 필요(확정 인용 금지). 합계표 없는 약식보고(기관 단순투자 등)는 co_holders=None. scope: summary 최대주주+5%블록(+공동보유자 분해)+자사주 snapshot / major_holders 특수관계인 detail / blocks 5% 대량보유 최신+이력+공동보유자 분해 / control_map 3대 카테고리(명부 등재/외부 능동/수동)+공동보유자 / changes 최대주주변동신고서(I004) + 5% 대량보유 변동(D001) 통합 ref: treasury_share, proxy_contest, evidence

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo
scopeNosummary
formatNomd
companyYes
end_dateNo
as_of_dateNo
start_dateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains data source prioritization (DART API, KIND fallback), the meaning of ownership_pct as combined with special relations, the co_holders_verified flag indicating need for manual verification, and scope options. This is comprehensive.

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?

The description is structured with headers (desc, when, rule, scope, ref) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is verbose, each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise but is well-organized.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple scope options, data source rules, verification details) and the existence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers all critical aspects for correct usage, including caveats about data verification.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'scope' parameter with detailed options (summary, major_holders, blocks, etc.), but other parameters like year, format, dates are not described. The partial coverage compensates somewhat but not fully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides ownership structure for major shareholders, special relations, and 5% blockholders, with co-holder decomposition. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'treasury_share' by noting treasury stock details are separate. The resource and action are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'when:' section explicitly describes use cases such as controlling share structure and co-holder decomposition. It references related tools but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. However, the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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