OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '제공합니다' (provides) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the information comes in. For a tool with 3 required parameters and 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 reasonably concise with two sentences: one stating purpose and one listing parameters. However, the parameter documentation is embedded in the description rather than separated, and the purpose statement could be more front-loaded. Some redundancy exists in parameter formatting notes.

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 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation in the description, but the description should better address parameter semantics and usage context. It covers basic purpose and parameter identification but lacks behavioral details and sibling differentiation.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantics: it identifies parameters as 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code) and date parameters with format 'YYYYMMDD' and constraint '2015년 이후' (after 2015). However, it doesn't explain where to find corp_code values, whether dates are inclusive/exclusive, or what happens if no data exists in the range. This partially compensates but leaves important gaps.

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: '회사합병 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 회사합병 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (provides merger decision information from major issue reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '회사합병 결정 정보' (merger decision information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_division_merger_decision' or 'get_merger_reg' which might handle related but different data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints beyond date parameters, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_division_merger_decision' or 'get_merger_reg' that appear to handle similar corporate actions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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