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 this is an information-providing tool ('정보를 제공합니다'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 good semantic coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines that would be important for proper tool invocation, especially without annotations.

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 provides clear parameter semantics in the Args section: corp_code (고유번호), bsns_year (사업연도), and reprt_code (보고서코드) with specific format constraints and code explanations. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter relationships or validation rules.

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: '주식의 총수 현황 - 정기보고서 내 주식의 총수 현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Total shares status - provides total shares status information within periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '주식의 총수 현황 정보' (total shares status information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_stock_issuance_status or get_treasury_stock_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it provides information from '정기보고서' (periodic reports), but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose other stock-related tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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