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. It mentions the source ('major matters report') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured Args section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Korean text might add slight complexity for non-Korean agents. Overall, it's well-organized and concise.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic parameter semantics but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall it's adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics: 'corp_code' as a unique 8-digit identifier, and date ranges with format (YYYYMMDD) and a constraint (post-2015). However, it doesn't explain validation rules, defaults, or examples, leaving some ambiguity for the three required parameters.

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: 'provides lawsuit filing information from the major matters report.' It specifies the verb 'provides' and the resource 'lawsuit filing information,' making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rehabilitation_filing' or 'get_dissolution_event,' which might also relate to legal proceedings, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or other contexts, such as whether it's for active lawsuits, historical data, or specific report types. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose it appropriately among similar tools.

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