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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what information is provided, but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits - no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient with no wasted words, though the parameter explanations could be better integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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) and the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a financial data retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention whether this accesses public data, requires authentication, or has any usage limitations to be more 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?

The description provides parameter semantics in Korean: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리), bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후), end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage), explaining that corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier and dates must be in YYYYMMDD format from 2015 onward. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions for all three parameters.

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: '상각형 조건부자본증권 발행결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 상각형 조건부자본증권 발행결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides contingent convertible bond issuance decision information from major reports). It specifies the resource (contingent convertible bond issuance decisions) and the source (major reports), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_convertible_bond_decision' or 'get_bond_with_warrant_decision' which might cover 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 specific type of bond (contingent convertible bonds), it doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other bond-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints beyond the date parameters.

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