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. It describes what the tool provides but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. However, the formatting includes extra whitespace and could be more streamlined. It's not overly verbose but could be more efficient in structure.

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) and the description covers the single parameter well, it's somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral context, it falls short of being fully comprehensive for a tool that likely deals with financial data standards.

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 adds crucial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'sj_div' parameter with specific values (BS, IS, CIS, CF, SCE) and their Korean meanings, compensating fully for the schema's lack of documentation. This is effective for a single parameter tool.

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 provides XBRL taxonomy for financial statements based on IFRS standards, with a specific resource (XBRL taxonomy) and scope (IFRS-based). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_xbrl_document' or 'get_full_financial_statement,' which might be related but serve different purposes.

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 the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or how it differs from other tools in the server that might handle financial data or XBRL-related tasks.

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