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 that the tool 'provides information' without specifying whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 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 clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The parameter documentation is well-organized with meaningful explanations. There's minimal wasted text, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner.

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 with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameter semantics. However, with no annotations and no behavioral context about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves, there are significant gaps. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 substantial semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'corp_code' is an 8-digit unique identifier, 'bsns_year' is a 4-digit business year (2015 onward), and 'reprt_code' corresponds to specific report types with clear code mappings. This compensates well 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 provides '채무증권 발행실적 정보' (debt securities issuance performance information) from regular reports. It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '채무증권 발행실적' (debt securities issuance performance). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_debt_securities_reg' or 'get_corporate_bond_balance', which appear related.

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 sibling tools, doesn't specify prerequisites beyond the parameters, and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations. The only implicit usage context is that it retrieves data from regular reports.

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