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 other behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, 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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section listing parameters with brief notes. There's no unnecessary fluff, and information is front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter notes more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still falls short in other areas, making it just barely sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds minimal semantics: it lists the three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) and provides basic format hints (e.g., '8자리' for corp_code, 'YYYYMMDD' for dates, '2015년 이후' for date range). However, it doesn't explain what 'corp_code' represents (e.g., company identifier), the significance of the date range, or any constraints beyond the year 2015, leaving key details unclear.

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: '교환사채권 발행결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 교환사채권 발행결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides exchangeable bond issuance decision information from major reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('교환사채권 발행결정 정보' - exchangeable bond issuance decision information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_convertible_bond_decision' or 'get_bond_with_warrant_decision', which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_convertible_bond_decision'), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection. The only usage hint is implicit from the parameters (date range and corp_code), but this is insufficient for explicit guidelines.

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