Fetch raw OpenDART disclosure filings for Korean companies by corporate code and date range, returning one page at a time and indicating if more pages remain.
Fetch one bounded page of raw OpenDART disclosures; partial status marks remaining pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_no | No | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| corp_code | Yes | ||
| page_count | No | ||
| start_date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose that only one bounded page is returned and that a partial status signals remaining pages. It does not explain return format, error semantics, or whether authentication or intermediate calls like resolve_dart_company are prerequisites.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a meaningful pagination caveat. It is appropriately brief, though some parameter semantics are sacrificed for brevity.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent lacks enough context about input formats, page size semantics, or what 'partial status' looks like in the response.
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?
The input schema provides 0% description coverage and the description itself gives no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what corp_code, start_date, end_date, page_no, or page_count represent or how they interact.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: fetching a bounded page of raw OpenDART disclosures, and differentiates it from overview/financial-statement sibling tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it misses the full differentiation criterion.
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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as dart_company_overview or dart_financial_statements. Pagination behavior is hinted at with 'partial status marks remaining pages,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.