OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter details into the main flow, but it's efficient overall with 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and usage guidelines, which are important gaps despite the output schema's assistance.

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 adds substantial semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter in Korean: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bsns_year: 사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, after 2015), and 'reprt_code: 보고서코드 (11013:1분기, 11012:반기, 11014:3분기, 11011:사업보고서)' (report code with specific values). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameters clear and actionable.

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: '조건부 자본증권 미상환 잔액 - 정기보고서 내 조건부 자본증권 미상환 잔액 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides information on outstanding contingent capital securities balances in periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '조건부 자본증권 미상환 잔액 정보' (contingent capital securities balance information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also provide financial data from reports, which prevents a perfect score.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related queries. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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