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 indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose other important behavioral aspects: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 3 required parameters and an output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Korean text is direct and each sentence serves a purpose. While slightly longer due to bilingual parameter documentation, it maintains focus without unnecessary elaboration. The formatting with clear parameter sections enhances readability.

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 provides adequate but incomplete context. The parameter semantics are well-covered, and the purpose is clear, but behavioral aspects are underspecified. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other operational context (authentication, errors, etc.) is missing for a tool with required parameters.

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 provides essential parameter context that the schema lacks. It clearly explains: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This adds crucial format requirements and constraints not present in the bare 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: '채권은행 등의 관리절차 중단 - 주요사항보고서 내 채권은행 등의 관리절차 중단 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides creditor bank management procedure stop information from major reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information) with context about the source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_creditor_management_start' beyond the 'stop' vs 'start' distinction in names.

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. There's no mention of when this specific creditor management stop information is needed, what distinguishes it from other financial reporting tools in the sibling list, or any prerequisites for its use. The parameter descriptions imply date constraints (2015년 이후 - after 2015) but this is parameter semantics, not usage guidance.

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