Download DART disclosure documents by 14-digit receipt number, returning the full text and an official direct URL to view the original. Use it to retrieve corporate filings directly.
DART 공시 접수번호(14자리)의 공시서류(ZIP)를 다운로드하여 텍스트 본문과 웹 링크를 반환합니다. (반환된 direct_url은 원문 열람 공식 링크입니다)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rcept_no | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | 반환할 파일당 최대 글자 수 (기본값: 0, 제한 없이 원문 전체 반환). 특정 글자 수로 제한할 경우에만 양수로 지정. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the download-and-return behavior and notes the direct_url is the official original-document link, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, size limits, or whether the ZIP is processed server-side, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 core action and key output details. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the return-value explanation from the main action.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and behavior. It mentions returning text and a web link, which is helpful, but it does not describe the format of the text, error handling, or what happens when max_chars is set. For a download tool with two parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 50%: rcept_no is described only by its pattern, while max_chars has a full description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining rcept_no is a 14-digit DART receipt number and that the output includes text and a web link, which helps the agent understand the parameters' role. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented rcept_no semantics, but the pattern and context provide adequate guidance.
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 tool downloads a DART disclosure document (ZIP) using a 14-digit receipt number and returns text content and a web link. It also clarifies that the returned direct_url is the official link for viewing the original document, which distinguishes its purpose from sibling API tools.
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 for downloading DART disclosure documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like call_dart_api or search_corp_code. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.