OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an information retrieval tool ('정보를 제공합니다'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining parameters. The parameter explanations are clear and directly relevant. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the purpose statement from the parameter documentation more clearly.

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 has 3 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what each parameter means, which addresses the parameter coverage gap. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be important for a data retrieval tool, and while the output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at what kind of data structure to expect in return.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic context for all 3 parameters: corp_code is explained as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bsns_year as '사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, 2015 onwards), and reprt_code with specific report type codes. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide examples or format details beyond the basic explanations.

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's purpose: '회계감사인의 명칭 및 감사의견 - 정기보고서 내 회계감사인의 명칭 및 감사의견 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides auditor name and opinion information from periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '회계감사인의 명칭 및 감사의견' (auditor name and opinion). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve financial report data, though the specific focus on auditor opinions is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only contextual information is that it works with '정기보고서' (periodic reports), but this doesn't help an agent choose between this and other financial data retrieval tools.

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