OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies this is a read-only data retrieval tool (consistent with 'get_' naming), it doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and doesn't provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. The parameter explanations are concise yet informative. While the Korean text might require translation for some agents, the structure itself is clean and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description provides excellent parameter semantics, the description is reasonably complete for a data retrieval tool. However, it lacks behavioral context about what kind of data is returned, potential limitations, or error conditions, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 clearly explains each parameter: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bsns_year (business year, 4-digit, 2015 onward), and reprt_code (report code with specific values for quarterly/half-year/3-quarter/annual reports). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and provides meaningful context for all 3 required parameters.

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: '단기사채 미상환 잔액 - 정기보고서 내 단기사채 미상환 잔액 정보를 제공합니다' (provides short-term bond outstanding balance information from periodic reports). It specifies both the resource (short-term bond balance) and the source (periodic reports), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_commercial_paper_balance or get_corporate_bond_balance.

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. With many sibling tools related to financial disclosures and bond information, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus tools like get_commercial_paper_balance or get_corporate_bond_balance. The parameter documentation implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit guidance.

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