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. It describes a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. The mention of '주요사항보고서 내' (within major reports) adds some context, but overall, the description lacks sufficient behavioral details for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It uses two sentences effectively with no wasted words. However, the formatting with indentation in the Args section is slightly verbose but not detrimental.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description does not need to explain those, but it should provide more operational details for a tool with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that documents all three parameters with brief semantics: corp_code as a unique identifier, bgn_de and end_de as start and end dates with format and year constraints. This compensates partially for the schema gap, but it does not provide deep semantic context (e.g., valid corp_code formats, date validation rules). Baseline is 3 as it adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a clear purpose: '해외 증권시장 주권등 상장 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information on overseas securities market stock listing decisions). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provide) and resource '정보' (information), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_overseas_listing' or 'get_overseas_delisting_decision' by focusing on decisions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_overseas_delisting_decision', which might be similar in scope but for delisting.

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 includes no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists parameters but does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for regulatory reporting), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_overseas_listing' or 'get_overseas_delisting_decision'. Usage is implied by the parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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