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 for behavioral disclosure. The description 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 error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap 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 appropriately concise with two sentences: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The structure is clear with the purpose first and parameters in a labeled section. No unnecessary information is included, though the parameter documentation could be more efficiently integrated.

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 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, for a financial data tool with no behavioral annotations, it should ideally include more about data freshness, source reliability, or typical use cases to be considered complete.

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 adds basic semantics for all three parameters: corp_code (고유번호 - unique number, 8 digits), bgn_de (시작일 - start date, YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and end_de (종료일 - end date, YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This compensates somewhat for the schema gap but doesn't provide rich details like valid date ranges, corp_code format validation, or relationship between dates.

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: '자기주식 처분 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 자기주식 처분 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides treasury stock disposal decision information within major reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('자기주식 처분 결정 정보' - treasury stock disposal decision information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_treasury_stock_acquisition_decision' or 'get_treasury_stock_status', which deal with related but different treasury stock matters.

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, specify use cases, or indicate prerequisites. The only contextual information is the date range constraint ('2015년 이후' - after 2015), but this is parameter documentation rather than usage guidance.

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