OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the return format ('base64 인코딩된 ZIP 파일을 반환합니다' - returns base64 encoded ZIP file), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or other operational constraints that would be helpful for an agent.

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 parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose - first stating what the tool does and what it returns, then documenting the two parameters. The formatting with Args: section is helpful, though the text could be slightly more polished.

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 an output schema exists (which presumably describes the base64 ZIP return), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. For a document retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, this provides reasonable context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details about error conditions or usage constraints.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters: rcept_no as '접수번호(14자리)' (14-digit receipt number) and reprt_code with specific code mappings for different report types. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter format constraints 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 specific action ('다운로드합니다' - downloads) and resource ('재무제표 원본파일(XBRL)' - XBRL financial statement original file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_document or get_full_financial_statement which handle different document types. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 like get_document or get_full_financial_statement. The description mentions what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with other document retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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