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, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the output takes. While the presence of an output schema helps, the description itself lacks behavioral context for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 brief purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The parameter explanations are clear and directly relevant. While the purpose statement could be more specific, there's no wasted text or redundancy.

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 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well with parameter documentation. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a corporate data retrieval tool with no annotations, the description lacks important behavioral context about permissions, rate limits, and error conditions that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides parameter documentation in Korean that explains each parameter's purpose: corp_code (unique 8-digit identifier), bgn_de (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and end_de (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain validation rules or provide examples.

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 states '부도발생 - 주요사항보고서 내 부도발생 정보를 제공합니다' which translates to 'Provides default occurrence information within the major matters report.' This identifies the resource (default occurrence information) and the context (major matters report), but the verb 'provides' is generic and doesn't specify whether this is a lookup, retrieval, or search operation. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve specific report 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations beyond the date constraints implied by parameters. With many sibling tools retrieving different types of corporate disclosure data, there's no indication of when this specific default occurrence data should be requested.

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