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. It states the tool 'provides information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a data retrieval function without contradictions.

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 a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, with every sentence serving a functional role. The bilingual content (Korean and English) is handled compactly, though minor improvements in formatting could enhance readability.

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 reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a data retrieval tool with structured output, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 includes an Args section that documents all three parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with semantic explanations in Korean, such as '고유번호(8자리)' for corp_code. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining parameter interactions or constraints beyond basic descriptions, warranting 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: '자기주식 취득 및 처분 현황 - 정기보고서 내 자기주식 취득 및 처분 현황 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Treasury stock acquisition and disposal status - provides information on treasury stock acquisition and disposal status within periodic reports.' This specifies the verb (provides information) and resource (treasury stock acquisition/disposal status), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_treasury_stock_acquisition_decision or get_treasury_stock_disposal_decision.

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. While it mentions the context ('within periodic reports'), it doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or contrast with sibling tools that might handle related treasury stock decisions or statuses. The parameter documentation implies usage for specific corporate reports but offers no strategic guidance.

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