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 this is a read operation ('제공합니다' - provides), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The formatting with 'Args:' is clear, though the mix of Korean and English might slightly reduce readability for some agents.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps for a simple lookup tool.

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 adds the parameter 'corp_code' with a brief explanation '고유번호(8자리)' (unique number, 8 digits), which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's title 'Corp Code'. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain this code or its format constraints, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter partially documented, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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: '기업개황 - DART에 등록된 기업의 개황정보를 제공합니다' (Company overview - provides overview information of companies registered in DART). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '기업의 개황정보' (company overview information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which mostly appear to be more specific financial/regulatory data retrievers.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_corp_code' (which might be needed first) or 'search_disclosure' (which might be broader). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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