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 a read operation ('제공합니다' - provides), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this tool requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The presence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description itself lacks behavioral context beyond the basic read operation.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sections: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the parameter section is organized with clear labels. While efficient, the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for some agents, but within the given language, it's well-structured without wasted words.

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 has 3 required parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. The purpose is clear and parameters are documented, but there are significant gaps: no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, limited behavioral context, and no information about error conditions or response formats. The output schema existence raises the baseline, but the description itself remains somewhat incomplete for a data retrieval tool.

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 parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining that corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier and bgn_de/end_de are start/end dates in YYYYMMDD format. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter information is essential. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond basic format specifications - no guidance on valid date ranges, corp_code validation, or what happens when no data exists for the specified 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: '합병 - 증권신고서 내 합병 요약정보를 제공합니다' (Mergers - provides summary information about mergers within securities reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and the resource '합병 요약정보' (merger summary information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merger_decision' or 'get_division_merger_decision', which likely handle different aspects of merger 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 multiple sibling tools related to mergers (get_merger_decision, get_division_merger_decision) and other corporate actions, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others. The only contextual information is the parameter requirements, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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