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. The description states it '정보를 제공합니다' (provides information), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with detailed explanations in a formatted Args section. Every sentence earns its place, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility in multilingual contexts.

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 (3 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With no annotations and many sibling tools, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles like 'Corp Code'), but the description explains: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique number, 8 digits), 'bsns_year: 사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, after 2015), and 'reprt_code: 보고서코드 (11013:1분기, 11012:반기, 11014:3분기, 11011:사업보고서)' (report code with specific enum values). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: '타법인 출자현황 - 정기보고서 내 타법인 출자현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Investment status in other corporations - provides information on investment status in other corporations within periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and the resource '타법인 출자현황 정보' (investment status in other corporations information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., other financial reporting tools), 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. While it mentions '정기보고서' (periodic reports) as the context, it doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. With 80+ sibling tools on the server, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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