Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
korea-finance-factcheck

korea-finance-factcheck

by hs85-newbie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_ratio_direction

Verifies whether a Korean article’s share-exchange ratio sentence is reversed compared with the cited DART filing or its 'A : B = 1 : x' notation.

Instructions

'X 1주당 Y n주' 문장이 공시 원문(본문의 접수번호로 조회)이나 본문 안의 'A : B = 1 : x' 표기와 반대로 적혔는지 본다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "check_ratio_direction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an external lookup behavior: it checks the original disclosure via a receipt number in the body and compares against inline ratio notation. It still omits read-only status, return format, error behavior, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 a single dense but front-loaded sentence with relevant parenthetical lookup detail. It contains no obvious redundant wording, though the Korean phrasing is somewhat complex.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter checker, the description explains the comparison sources and the reversal condition. However, with no output schema and no return-value description, it leaves the result semantics and exact input format underspecified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one parameter, 'text', with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions a sentence and body containing a receipt number and ratio notation, but it never clearly defines what 'text' should contain or whether it is the sentence alone or a larger disclosure body.

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 states a specific verb-resource: checking whether an 'X per 1 share Y shares' sentence has reversed ratio direction against the original disclosure or an inline 'A : B = 1 : x' notation. It is distinguishable from sibling checks by domain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage for stock-ratio sentences by describing the target pattern and comparison sources. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools