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 '정보를 제공합니다' (provides information), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't address rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The date constraints (2015년 이후) are mentioned but not explained.

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 parameter documentation. The Korean text is direct without unnecessary elaboration, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations but with an output schema present, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context. However, it lacks behavioral details (rate limits, auth needs) and doesn't explain the relationship with the similar 'get_overseas_delisting' sibling tool, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 description must compensate. It documents all 3 parameters with basic explanations: corp_code as 고유번호(8자리), bgn_de as 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후), and end_de as 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though format details remain minimal.

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: '해외 증권시장 주권등 상장폐지 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information about overseas securities market delisting decisions). It specifies the resource (overseas delisting decisions) and source (major reports), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_overseas_delisting' which appears to be a similar tool.

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 the sibling 'get_overseas_delisting' tool or explain the difference between them, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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