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 'provides information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. There's no unnecessary fluff, and the information is front-loaded. The structure with an Args section is clear, though the purpose statement is slightly redundant.

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), a single parameter with basic documentation, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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 includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'corp_code' with a brief explanation ('고유번호(8자리)' meaning 'unique number (8 digits)'). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain this code 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '대량보유 상황보고 - 주식등의 대량보유상황보고서 내 대량보유 상황보고 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Major stockholding situation report - provides major stockholding situation report information within the major stockholding situation report of stocks, etc.' This specifies the verb ('provides') and resource ('major stockholding situation report information'), though it's somewhat redundant. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specificity of 'major stockholding situation report' distinguishes it from other financial reporting tools in the list.

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 prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to any sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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