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 source ('periodic reports') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no 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 reasonably concise with two sentences, but the structure could be improved. The first sentence is somewhat vague ('dividend-related matters'), and the parameter documentation is embedded in a code-like format rather than integrated naturally. It's front-loaded with purpose but could be more polished.

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 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would be helpful for an 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 clear parameter documentation in the Args section: it explains what each parameter represents (corp_code as 'unique number', bsns_year as 'business year', reprt_code with specific code mappings). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 the tool 'provides dividend-related information from periodic reports', which clearly indicates the verb (provide) and resource (dividend information). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'search_disclosure' that might also provide financial information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With many sibling tools available (like get_document, get_full_financial_statement, search_disclosure), there's no indication of when this specific dividend tool is appropriate versus other data sources.

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