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 behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description mentions the data source ('정기보고서 내' - within periodic reports) but lacks details on data freshness, access restrictions, or what happens if no matching data exists.

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: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The parameter section is clearly formatted with bullet-like structure. No redundant information is present, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be made by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a read-only data retrieval tool with output schema, the description meets basic needs but leaves gaps in operational understanding that the agent must infer.

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 documentation. The description compensates by listing all three parameters with brief explanations: corp_code (고유번호), bsns_year (사업연도), and reprt_code (보고서코드 with code mappings). It adds value by explaining reprt_code values, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., corp_code length validation, bsns_year range beyond '2015년 이후'), or examples. 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: '개인별 보수지급 금액(5억이상 상위5인) 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information on individual compensation payments of top 5 individuals with 500 million won or more). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information) with scope '정기보고서 내' (within periodic reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_individual_compensation' or 'get_total_compensation', 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 sibling tools like 'get_individual_compensation' or 'get_total_compensation', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts beyond the basic parameter requirements. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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