OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '정보를 제공합니다' (provides information), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the information comes in. The mention of date constraints (2015년 이후 - after 2015) is useful but insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 another listing parameters. The parameter documentation is structured with clear labels and constraints. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the Korean/English mix might cause minor parsing issues for some agents.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates moderately by documenting all parameters and their basic semantics. It falls short in providing behavioral context (authentication, rate limits) and usage guidelines compared to sibling tools, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters: corp_code (고유번호 - unique number), bgn_de (시작일 - start date), and end_de (종료일 - end date). It also specifies date format (YYYYMMDD) and temporal constraint (2015년 이후 - after 2015). However, it doesn't explain where to obtain corp_code values or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: '신주인수권부사채권 발행결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 신주인수권부사채권 발행결정 정보를 제공합니다.' This translates to 'Provides bond with warrant issuance decision information from major matters reports.' It specifies both the verb (provides information) and the resource (bond with warrant issuance decisions from reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_convertible_bond_decision' or 'get_exchangeable_bond_decision' which likely handle similar financial instruments.

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. While it mentions the source ('주요사항보고서' - major matters reports), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There's no comparison to sibling tools that handle related bond decisions, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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