Fetch raw OpenDART financial statements for a single company, with explicit consolidated or separate basis selection. Provides official disclosure data for investment research.
Fetch raw OpenDART single-company account statements with explicit consolidated/separate basis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fs_div | Yes | ||
| corp_code | Yes | ||
| report_code | Yes | ||
| business_year | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'raw' statements, but it does not mention prerequisites, authentication, rate limits, response format, report_code semantics, or any caveats about data availability.
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; the verb and resource come first. It is concise, though it omits important parameter and usage details that would make it more effective.
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 four required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter coverage, the description leaves too much to inference. An agent cannot reliably select the correct report_code or understand what the returned statements contain or how they differ from sibling tool outputs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for fs_div ('consolidated/separate basis') and partially for corp_code ('single-company'). It leaves business_year and especially the opaque report_code enum values (11013, 11012, 11014, 11011) unexplained.
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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('OpenDART single-company account statements'), and a distinguishing attribute ('explicit consolidated/separate basis'). It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly position itself against sibling tools such as dart_company_overview or dart_disclosures.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'raw single-company account statements' weakly implies a use case, but an agent receives no help choosing between this tool and the sibling OpenDART/DART tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.