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 states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes (though an output schema exists), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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. The Korean purpose statement is concise, and the parameter explanations are direct. While the formatting could be cleaner (indentation issues), the content is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place by explaining either the tool's function or parameter meanings.

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 4 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It adequately explains parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should address more about the tool's operation, constraints, and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides crucial semantic information for all 4 parameters. It explains: corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier, bsns_year is a 4-digit business year (2015+), reprt_code specifies report types with exact code mappings, and fs_div distinguishes between individual and consolidated financial statements. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: '단일회사 전체 재무제표를 제공합니다' (provides a single company's complete financial statements). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('재무제표' - financial statements). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_single_company_accounts' or 'get_single_financial_index', which might offer related financial data.

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 many sibling tools related to financial data (e.g., 'get_single_company_accounts', 'get_single_financial_index', 'get_multi_financial_index'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others. The parameter documentation implies usage context but doesn't address tool selection.

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