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 mentions the source ('major reports') and that it 'provides information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core function, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted sentences, though the Korean language might require translation for some agents.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, error handling). The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated, but for a tool with no annotations, more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all 3 parameters in Korean: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)', 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)', 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)'. It adds meaning by specifying format (8-digit code, YYYYMMDD), constraints (2015 or later), and semantic roles (start date, end date), which the schema's generic titles ('Corp Code', 'Bgn De', 'End De') lack.

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: '유형자산 양수 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 유형자산 양수 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Tangible asset acquisition decision - provides information about tangible asset acquisition decisions within major reports). It specifies the verb ('provides information') and resource ('tangible asset acquisition decisions'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tangible_asset_transfer_decision' or 'get_asset_transfer_putback', which appear related.

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 any prerequisites, constraints beyond date parameters, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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