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 information is provided, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The bilingual approach (Korean purpose, English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated with the purpose statement.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain output format. However, for a tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the business context of 'tangible asset transfer decisions' and how this tool differs from related sibling tools. The parameter documentation is adequate but the overall context is minimal.

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 includes an Args section that documents all 3 parameters with Korean labels and format constraints (corp_code: 8-digit unique number, bgn_de/end_de: YYYYMMDD format after 2015). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't explain what '유형자산 양도 결정' (tangible asset transfer decision) means in business context or how the parameters relate to the output.

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 양도 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 유형자산 양도 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Tangible asset transfer decision - provides tangible asset transfer decision information within major report). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides), resource ('유형자산 양도 결정 정보' - tangible asset transfer decision information), and context ('주요사항보고서 내' - within major report). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tangible_asset_acquisition_decision' or 'get_asset_transfer_putback', 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 doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only contextual information is that it operates within '주요사항보고서' (major report), but this doesn't help distinguish it from other tools that might also work with similar reports.

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