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 what information is provided without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The structure is clear with purpose first, then parameters. No wasted words, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

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 but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema helps (description doesn't need to explain return values), but for a tool that likely queries financial/regulatory data, more context about authentication, rate limits, or data freshness would be beneficial.

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 brief explanations in Korean: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't explain where to obtain corp_code or date constraints beyond 2015.

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: '회사분할 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 회사분할 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides company division decision information from major item reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '회사분할 결정 정보' (company division decision information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_division_merger_decision' or 'get_merger_decision' which might be 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. While it mentions the source ('주요사항보고서 내' - from major item reports), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_division_merger_decision' or 'get_merger_decision' in the sibling list.

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