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 only states what the tool does (provides financial indicators) without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. While slightly verbose due to the Korean-English code explanations, every sentence serves a purpose. The parameter documentation is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It's adequate for understanding what the tool does and what inputs it needs, but doesn't provide enough operational guidance for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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 that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each of the 4 required parameters: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bsns_year (4-digit business year), reprt_code (report codes with specific mappings to quarters/annual reports), and idx_cl_code (indicator classification codes with specific category mappings). This adds substantial value 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '단일회사 주요 재무지표를 제공합니다' (provides key financial indicators for a single company). It specifies the resource (financial indicators) and scope (single company), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_multi_financial_index' beyond the 'single' vs 'multi' distinction in their names.

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 sibling tools like 'get_multi_financial_index' or 'get_full_financial_statement', nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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