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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the comma-separated format for corp_code but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 4 required parameters and batch functionality, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 well-organized parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with indented Args section could be slightly cleaner. The information density is high without unnecessary verbiage.

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 (4 required parameters, batch operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The parameter documentation is excellent, but behavioral aspects are lacking. With an output schema available, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should cover more operational context given no annotations.

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 despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains corp_code format (8-digit, comma-separated), bsns_year format (4-digit), and provides complete enum mappings for reprt_code and idx_cl_code with clear code-to-meaning translations. 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 specific action ('일괄 조회합니다' - batch retrieval) and resource ('다중회사 주요 재무지표' - multi-company key financial indicators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_single_financial_index by explicitly mentioning '여러 회사의' (multiple companies) and '일괄' (batch), making the scope and differentiation clear.

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 batch retrieval for multiple companies, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over single-company tools or other financial data tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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