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. It states the tool 'provides information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., structured vs. raw). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a parameter list. It uses two sentences total, with no redundant information. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise, and the overall structure is simple but effective.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 brief explanations (e.g., 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' meaning 'unique number (8 digits)'). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional parameter details. The description compensates by defining each parameter, but the explanations are minimal and lack examples or constraints (e.g., format validation for 'bsns_year'). This meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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: '최대주주 현황 - 정기보고서 내 최대주주 현황 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Largest shareholder status - provides largest shareholder status information within periodic reports.' This specifies the verb (provides), resource (largest shareholder status information), and scope (within periodic reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_largest_shareholder_change' or 'get_major_stockholding', which appear 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 context ('within periodic reports'), it doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_largest_shareholder_change' or 'get_major_stockholding'. The absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without clear direction.

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