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 '제공합니다' (provides information), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. There's no wasted text, and each part earns its place. However, the formatting with indentation in the Args section is slightly inconsistent, and it could be more polished, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling). The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address basic operational traits. This results in a minimum viable but incomplete description.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all three parameters in Korean: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique number, 8 digits), '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 codes and meanings). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics and constraints.

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: '회사채 미상환 잔액 - 정기보고서 내 회사채 미상환 잔액 정보를 제공합니다' (Corporate bond outstanding balance - provides information on corporate bond outstanding balances in periodic reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('회사채 미상환 잔액 정보' - corporate bond outstanding balance information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_short_term_bond_balance or get_commercial_paper_balance, which prevents a score of 5.

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 like get_short_term_bond_balance or get_commercial_paper_balance, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The parameter descriptions imply usage context (e.g., '정기보고서 내' - within periodic reports), but this is too vague to constitute explicit guidelines.

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