OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded ZIP file) which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid rcept_no), file size considerations, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for non-Korean agents. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter file download), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and the return format. The output schema presumably covers the base64 structure, so the description doesn't need to detail return values further.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter: '접수번호(14자리)' (receipt number, 14 digits). This provides crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks, including format requirements and the parameter's purpose in identifying the specific document.

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 specific action ('다운로드합니다' - downloads) and resource ('공시보고서 원본파일(ZIP)' - disclosure report original file ZIP), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on raw file download rather than structured data extraction (unlike get_xbrl_document or search_disclosure). The Korean text is precise and unambiguous about what the tool delivers.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_xbrl_document (for structured XBRL data) or search_disclosure (for finding documents). The description assumes the user already knows they need the raw ZIP file, but offers no comparative context with the 80+ sibling tools listed.

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