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 this is an information-providing tool, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm this. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or what happens when parameters are invalid. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 documenting parameters. The parameter documentation is structured clearly with bullet points. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose statement first.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic purpose and documents parameters minimally, but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and deeper parameter semantics. For a corporate data retrieval tool with date constraints, more context about what constitutes valid inputs and expected outputs would be helpful.

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?

The description provides parameter documentation in the Args section, listing all 3 parameters with brief explanations. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without descriptions. The description adds value by explaining corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique number, 8 digits) and date parameters with format (YYYYMMDD) and temporal constraint (2015년 이후). This partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, but doesn't fully explain parameter semantics or provide examples.

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: '감자 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 감자 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Capital reduction decision - provides capital reduction decision information within major issue reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '감자 결정 정보' (capital reduction decision information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_division_decision' or 'get_merger_decision' that also provide corporate decision information.

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, doesn't specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts, and offers no comparison to other decision-related tools in the list. The only implicit guidance is the date range requirement (2015년 이후), but this doesn't help with tool selection.

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