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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '제공합니다' (provides information), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least indicates the data source.

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 a parameter list. It's concise at two sentences plus parameter details, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement helps, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, financial data), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and sibling differentiation. This makes it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for optimal agent decision-making in a crowded toolset.

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 includes an Args section that lists and briefly describes all three parameters ('corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)', 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)', 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond date ranges, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 양도 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 주권 관련 사채권 양도 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides stock-related bond transfer decision information from major reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('주권 관련 사채권 양도 결정 정보' - stock-related bond transfer decision information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_bond_acquisition_decision' or 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer_decision', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions the source ('주요사항보고서 내' - from major reports) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for financial disclosures (e.g., 'get_bond_with_warrant_decision', 'get_convertible_bond_decision'), the lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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