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 states this is an information-providing tool but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, or what format the output takes. While '정보를 제공합니다' implies a read operation, it lacks details about authentication requirements, response structure, or potential limitations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a well-formatted Args section that explains each parameter. There's no wasted text, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner for machine parsing.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions that would be important for a production API tool. The parameter explanations are strong, but overall context about the tool's operation 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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bsns_year as '사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, 2015 onward), and reprt_code with specific code mappings (11013:1분기, etc.). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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(주주총회 승인금액) 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information on total compensation status of directors/auditors approved by shareholders' meeting). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('보수현황' - compensation status), but 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_compensation_by_type' or 'get_individual_compensation' that appear related to compensation data. There's no context about when this specific 'total compensation approval' data is needed versus other compensation-related tools.

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