OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '제공합니다' (provides) information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that appears to query financial regulatory data.

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: one stating the purpose and one documenting parameters. The parameter documentation is clearly formatted with each parameter on its own line. No unnecessary information is included, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated with the purpose statement.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which exists according to context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or output format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still address operational constraints for this financial data query tool.

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 explicitly lists all three parameters with their Korean names and provides semantic context: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique number, 8 digits), 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD)' (start date), 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD)' (end date). With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description is essential and provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema field names.

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: '분할 - 증권신고서 내 분할 요약정보를 제공합니다' (Division - provides summary information of division within securities registration statements). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '분할 요약정보' (division summary information). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_division_decision' or 'get_division_merger_decision', which appear to be related to division decisions rather than registration statements.

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 are multiple sibling tools related to divisions (get_division_decision, get_division_merger_decision) and registrations (get_merger_reg, get_equity_securities_reg), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when it should be selected over those alternatives.

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