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. While '제공합니다' (provides) suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-formatted parameter documentation section. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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 the description fully documents all parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a read operation. However, it lacks behavioral context about permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent, and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 includes an Args section that documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with clear Korean labels and format specifications (YYYYMMDD for dates, 8-digit code). With 0% schema description coverage, this documentation in the description fully compensates for the schema gap, providing essential semantic context that the schema's bare titles lack.

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: '채무증권 - 증권신고서 내 채무증권 요약정보를 제공합니다' (Debt securities - provides summary information of debt securities within securities registration statements). It specifies both the resource (debt securities) and the action (provides summary information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_debt_securities_issued' or 'get_corporate_bond_balance', which appear related but not identical.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_debt_securities_issued' or 'get_corporate_bond_balance'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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