Skip to main content
Glama
taylee9809

budongsan-tax

by taylee9809
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Homes excluded from the count

judge_second_home_exclusion
Read-onlyIdempotent

Determines if a second home qualifies for home-count exclusion under Korean tax rules for rural/hometown, depopulation-area, or unsold-completed housing.

Instructions

Homes excluded from the home count: rural/hometown house, depopulation-area house, unsold completed house.

주택수 제외 특례 3형제 — 조특법 §99의4(농어촌·고향주택) / §71의2(인구감소지역) / §98의9(준공후미분양).

kind: "농어촌주택"|"고향주택"|"인구감소지역주택"|"인구감소관심지역주택"|"준공후미분양주택".
준공후미분양주택(§98의9·영 §98의8): 취득 2024-01-10~**2026-12-31 일몰**, 수도권 밖 소재,
전용 85㎡ 이하·취득가액 7억 이하, 양도자가 사업주체·분양사업자·시공자, 양수자가 최초 계약자,
사용검사일까지 분양계약이 없어 선착순 공급된 것 — exclusive_area_m2·acquisition_price·
first_contract·seller_is_supplier로 판정한다.
농어촌주택: 취득 2003-08-01~2028-12-31, 기준시가 3억(한옥 4억) 이하, 3년 보유,
일반주택과 같거나 연접한 읍·면·동이면 배제(§99의4③).
인구감소지역주택: 취득 2024-01-04~**2026-12-31 일몰**, 기준시가 수도권 밖 9억 /
수도권 인구감소지역·인구감소관심지역 4억, 종전 주택과 같은 시·군·구면 배제(영 §68의2①).
종부세 1세대1주택자 간주는 9/16~9/30 별도 신청 필요(§71의2②③).
두 특례 모두 특례 주택을 **나중에** 취득해야 적용된다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
is_hanokNo
same_sigunguNo
acquired_dateYes
holding_yearsNo
first_contractNo
in_capital_areaNo
published_priceYes
acquisition_priceNo
exclusive_area_m2No
seller_is_supplierNo
same_or_adjacent_areaNo
acquired_after_general_homeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: sunset windows (e.g. §98의9 to 2026-12-31), the requirement that the special home be acquired after the general home, and the separate 9/16~9/30 filing for the one-home deemed status. It does not describe the response shape, which holds it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense bilingual wall of statutory citations that mixes Korean and English and is hard to scan. Most sentences carry real content, yet the structure is not clean enough to count as efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 13-parameter judgment tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is fairly complete: it lays out the legal framework per kind, the price/date/area thresholds, and the acquisition-order precondition. It does not explain the returned judgment or failure behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it gives the kind enum values verbatim (which the schema omits), and names exclusive_area_m2, acquisition_price, first_contract, seller_is_supplier as the determiners of 준공후미분양, plus thresholds tied to published_price, is_hanok, holding_years, in_capital_area, same_sigungu, same_or_adjacent_area, and acquired_after_general_home. Mapping is embedded in prose rather than per-parameter, so not a full 5.

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 names a specific determination (homes excluded from the home count) and enumerates the four qualifying kinds (농어촌주택, 고향주택, 인구감소지역주택, 준공후미분양주택), so an agent knows what this tool judges. It does not explicitly route away from siblings like count_transfer_homes or judge_temporary_two_homes, but the resource is clear.

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?

Usage is implied through the statutory conditions attached to each kind rather than stated directly; there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' sentence and no named alternative among the many sibling judge_/count_ tools. The conditions do let an agent infer applicability, which is why this lands at minimum-viable rather than lower.

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