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 for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an information retrieval tool ('제공합니다'), it doesn't describe response format, pagination, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'dissolution event' beyond the Korean term. The mention of '주요사항보고서' (major event reports) provides some context but insufficient behavioral detail.

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: purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The parameter section uses clear formatting with bullet-like structure. No wasted words, though the Korean-only presentation might limit accessibility 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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics and purpose. However, for a corporate disclosure tool with 80+ siblings, it lacks context about dissolution events' significance, relationship to other corporate actions, or output structure (though output schema exists). The description is minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps unaddressed.

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 provides parameter names and basic semantics: corp_code as unique identifier, bgn_de/end_de as date range with format YYYYMMDD and constraint '2015년 이후' (after 2015). However, it doesn't explain what happens if dates are invalid, whether the range is inclusive, or what 'corp_code' represents beyond '고유번호' (unique number). The description adds meaningful context but leaves gaps.

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: '해산사유 발생 - 주요사항보고서 내 해산사유 발생 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides dissolution reason occurrence information within major event reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '해산사유 발생 정보' (dissolution reason occurrence information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_division_decision' or 'get_merger_decision' which handle other corporate events.

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. With 80+ sibling tools handling various corporate events and disclosures, there's no indication of when dissolution events should be queried versus other event types, nor any prerequisites or context for usage beyond the parameter requirements.

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