OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an information retrieval tool ('제공합니다'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like 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 no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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. Both sentences earn their place: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides essential parameter information. The formatting with clear parameter labels enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and parameters. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no behavioral annotations, it should ideally include more context about usage scenarios, constraints, or output characteristics to be fully complete for agent understanding.

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 includes an Args section that documents all three parameters with Korean labels and format constraints (e.g., 'YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates adequately by explaining each parameter's meaning and format, establishing a baseline understanding despite the schema gap.

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: '무상증자 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 무상증자 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides free capital increase decision information from major issue reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '무상증자 결정 정보' (free capital increase decision information), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paid_capital_increase' or 'get_mixed_capital_increase', which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'get_paid_capital_increase' and 'get_mixed_capital_increase' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes free capital increases from paid or mixed ones, nor any prerequisites or constraints beyond the parameter requirements. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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