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 states the tool '제공합니다' (provides) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or error handling. 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 sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more structured. Overall, it earns its place with clear information.

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, and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a data retrieval tool in a financial context, more guidance on when to use it would improve completeness.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bsns_year as '사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, after 2015), and reprt_code with specific codes and their meanings (e.g., 11013:1분기 - 1st quarter). 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 with specific verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('기업어음증권 미상환 잔액 정보' - commercial paper outstanding balance information), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's from '정기보고서' (regular reports). It's not a tautology of the name/title.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it provides information from regular reports, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like get_corporate_bond_balance or get_short_term_bond_balance. Usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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