Find a company by its name, 6-digit stock code, or 8-digit corporate ID. Use the stock code to avoid issues from corporate name changes.
회사명, 6자리 종목코드, 또는 8자리 고유번호로 기업을 검색합니다. (사명 변경 영향을 피하려면 6자리 종목코드[예: 005930] 검색 권장)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 반환할 최대 결과 수 | |
| query | Yes | 회사명(예: 삼성전자), 6자리 종목코드(005930), 또는 8자리 고유번호 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search-key types and the rationale for preferring the 6-digit code, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether the search is exact-match or fuzzy, which would matter for an agent deciding how to use the result.
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?
One sentence with a parenthetical tip. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the example is embedded efficiently. No wasted words.
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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about the result shape or how to handle multiple matches, which is a meaningful gap for a search tool.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a concrete example and the recommendation to use the 6-digit code, which is helpful but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('검색합니다') and resource (기업), and enumerates the three accepted search keys: 회사명, 6자리 종목코드, 8자리 고유번호. It also includes a concrete example (005930) and a recommendation to prefer the 6-digit code to avoid name-change issues, which clearly distinguishes this tool from the 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 gives clear context on what to search by and even recommends the 6-digit code to avoid name-change effects. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of call_krx_api, call_dart_api, or download_dart_document, but the search-oriented purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the lookup step before those API/document tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.