Naver Finance Crawl MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the tool 'returns comprehensive data,' it lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and parameter, and the second sentence details the return data, making it front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and return data types but lacks behavioral context and output structure details, which are important for a crawling tool without annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'stockCode' parameter's type, pattern, and example. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning '6-digit code' and implying it identifies a stock, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('crawl detailed information'), target resource ('for a specific stock'), and key identifier ('by its 6-digit code'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'crawl_top_stocks' by focusing on individual stock details rather than top stocks.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific stock by its 6-digit code,' which suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implied distinction from 'crawl_top_stocks.'

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