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 only states what information is provided, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 3 required parameters and an output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Korean text is concise and front-loaded with the main functionality. The parameter section uses clear formatting with colons and parentheses for additional details, though the English parameter names mixed with Korean explanations creates minor cognitive friction.

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 required parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, rate limits, etc.) and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden on the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides Korean translations and brief explanations for each parameter (corp_code: 고유번호(8자리), bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후), end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain corp_code values or clarify date format expectations beyond the YYYYMMDD notation.

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 business transfer decision information from a major matters report, with a specific verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('영업양도 결정 정보' - business transfer decision information). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_business_acquisition_decision' by focusing on transfers rather than acquisitions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other transfer-related tools like 'get_asset_transfer_putback'.

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. While the description mentions it's for business transfer decisions, it doesn't specify scenarios where this would be preferred over other decision tools or how it relates to the broader disclosure search tool. The date constraints (2015년 이후) are parameter-specific 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.