Find books with surging loan popularity on a specific date. Query any date to identify rapidly rising borrowing trends across South Korea's public libraries.
대출 급상승 도서를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchDt | Yes | 검색일자 (YYYY-MM-DD 형식) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that this is a read operation; it does not mention output format, result limits, sorting, whether the date must be a published data date, or any other behavioral trait. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and resource economically, though its brevity comes at the cost of useful context.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should supply more context about what a 'hot trend' result contains and how searchDt affects the result. It provides only a headline-level statement, leaving an agent unable to anticipate response semantics, expected date behavior, or caveats.
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%: the lone parameter searchDt is fully described with its type, format, and Korean meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific insight, but because the schema already handles the parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific action ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and a specific resource ('대출 급상승 도서' = books with rapidly rising loans). This is concrete enough for an agent to know the tool's basic purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like get_usage_trend or get_popular_books_by_library.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the date parameter's role. Given the large set of sibling tools, an agent must infer the appropriate selection entirely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.