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 provides information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core function, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated. No wasted sentences.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for effective tool invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bgn_de as '시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and end_de similarly. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond date format.

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: '채권은행 등의 관리절차 개시 - 주요사항보고서 내 채권은행 등의 관리절차 개시 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides creditor bank management procedure initiation information within major reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_creditor_management_stop'.

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 the context ('주요사항보고서 내' - within major reports) but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'get_creditor_management_stop' or other financial reporting tools.

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