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 mentions the output is base64-encoded ZIP, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no data is available. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information: what data is returned, in what format, and how it's encoded. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. It could potentially benefit from a second sentence about usage context, but as a standalone description it's appropriately concise.

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 the tool has an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and many sibling alternatives, the description should provide more context about when and why to use this specific tool. The current description is adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It focuses on what the tool does rather than what inputs it accepts, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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: it returns a ZIP file containing corporate codes from DART with specific data fields (unique numbers, company names, stock codes). It specifies the format (ZIP file) and encoding (base64). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which all appear to retrieve different types of DART data.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to other tools that might retrieve corporate information. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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