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), suggesting a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what format the information comes in. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational 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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing parameters. The parameter section is clearly formatted. There's no wasted text, though the purpose sentence could be slightly more specific. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter formats, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, error handling) and usage differentiation from siblings. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This covers format and constraints but doesn't explain where to get corp_code or date validation rules. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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: '주식교환·이전 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (provides stock exchange/transfer decision information). It specifies the resource ('주식교환·이전 결정' - stock exchange/transfer decisions) and context ('주요사항보고서 내' - within major matters reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_stock_bond_transfer_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. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., 'get_stock_bond_transfer_decision', 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer_decision'), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's scope or when it's appropriate. The parameter descriptions imply date constraints ('2015년 이후' - after 2015) but no usage context.

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