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 indicates this is an information retrieval tool ('정보를 제공합니다'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The bilingual presentation (Korean purpose, English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or error handling. It's minimally complete but leaves operational questions unanswered.

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 context for all three parameters: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bsns_year (business year, 2015 onward), and reprt_code (report codes with specific mappings). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints beyond the basics.

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 변동현황 정보를 제공합니다' (provides largest shareholder change information). It specifies the source ('정기보고서 내' - within periodic reports) and the type of data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_largest_shareholder' or 'get_major_stockholding', which appear related but have different scopes.

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 that appear to retrieve different types of shareholder or financial information (e.g., get_largest_shareholder, get_major_stockholding, get_executive_stockholding), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over those options.

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