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. While it indicates this is a read operation (정보를 제공합니다 - provides information), it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are concise yet informative. There's minimal wasted text, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in usage guidance and transparency.

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 provides parameter documentation in Korean with clear explanations: corp_code (고유번호 8자리 - unique 8-digit code), bsns_year (사업연도 4자리, 2015년 이후 - 4-digit business year, 2015 onwards), and reprt_code with specific code mappings. With 0% schema description coverage, this documentation adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: '이사·감사 전체의 보수현황 - 정기보고서 내 이사·감사 전체의 보수현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides compensation status information for all directors/auditors within periodic reports). It specifies the resource (directors/auditors compensation status) and context (periodic reports), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_compensation_by_type or get_individual_compensation.

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. There are multiple compensation-related sibling tools (get_compensation_by_type, get_individual_compensation, get_top5_compensation, get_unregistered_exec_compensation), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when each should be used.

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