OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool '정보를 제공합니다' (provides information), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but zero annotation coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context about how the tool operates. For a read-only query tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but could benefit from more operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does by documenting all 3 parameters with their Korean names and constraints. It explains corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier, and both date parameters require YYYYMMDD format with the constraint '2015년 이후' (after 2015). This adds substantial 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '주권 관련 사채권 양수 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information about stock-related bond acquisition decisions). It specifies the source ('주요사항보고서 내' - within major fact reports) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on stock-related bond acquisitions rather than other types of decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_bond_with_warrant_decision or get_convertible_bond_decision.

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 dealing with various corporate decisions (bond decisions, acquisitions, transfers), there's no indication of when this specific stock-related bond acquisition decision tool is appropriate versus other bond or acquisition decision tools. The date range constraint (2015년 이후 - after 2015) is a parameter requirement, not usage guidance.

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