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. It indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information) but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The date constraints (2015년 이후 - after 2015) are mentioned, but other operational characteristics are missing.

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 documentation. The Korean text is concise, and the parameter explanations are direct. There's minimal redundancy, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner.

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) and the description documents all parameters, the basics are covered. However, as a financial data tool with no annotations, it lacks important context about authentication, rate limits, error handling, and data freshness that would be valuable for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by documenting all 3 parameters: corp_code (고유번호 8자리 - unique 8-digit code), bgn_de (시작일 YYYYMMDD 2015년 이후 - start date after 2015), and end_de (종료일 YYYYMMDD 2015년 이후 - end date after 2015). It provides format requirements and temporal constraints that aren't in the schema.

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: '자산양수도(기타), 풋백옵션 - 주요사항보고서 내 자산양수도 및 풋백옵션 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides asset transfer (other) and putback option information from major reports). It specifies the resource (asset transfer and putback option information) and verb (provides), but 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. While it mentions the specific data type (asset transfer and putback options), it doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints beyond date parameters, or when other tools might be more appropriate. The sibling list includes many other financial reporting tools, but no comparative context is given.

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