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 indicates this is a read operation (정보를 제공합니다 - provides information) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is real-time/historical. For a tool with 3 parameters and 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting parameters. The parameter documentation is structured clearly with bullet-like formatting. No wasted words, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for non-Korean agents.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but more operational context would be helpful for this financial data tool.

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 clear semantic meaning for all 3 parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier, bgn_de is start date in YYYYMMDD format after 2015, and end_de is end date with same constraints. 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: providing information about treasury stock acquisition trust contract termination decisions from major reports. It specifies the resource ('자기주식취득 신탁계약 해지 결정 정보') and the source ('주요사항보고서'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the specific data type.

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, prerequisites, or specific use cases. The only contextual information is the date range requirement (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.