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 what information is provided but doesn't describe the tool's behavior: whether it's a read-only query, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 bilingual presentation (Korean purpose, English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but functional. No sentences are wasted, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner for an MCP tool definition.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and the description provides parameter semantics, the basics are covered. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations and complex sibling relationships, the description should provide more context about what constitutes 'paid capital increase' versus other types, and behavioral aspects like data freshness or source reliability.

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 meaningful parameter explanations beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It clarifies that 'corp_code' is an 8-digit unique identifier, 'bgn_de' is a start date in YYYYMMDD format, 'end_de' is an end date in the same format, and both dates must be 2015 or later. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain validation rules 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: providing paid capital increase decision information from major issue reports. It specifies the resource ('유상증자 결정 정보' - paid capital increase decision information) and source ('주요사항보고서 내' - within major issue reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_free_capital_increase' or 'get_mixed_capital_increase' beyond the 'paid' qualifier in the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_free_capital_increase' or 'get_mixed_capital_increase' that handle related capital increase types, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use. The only implicit guidance is the date range constraint (2015 onward).

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