OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides information' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description mentions the source ('regular reports') which adds some context, but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The bilingual presentation (Korean purpose statement, English parameter names) is slightly inefficient but not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters fully documented in the description, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and documents all parameters, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, rate limits, errors) and usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a read-oriented data retrieval tool, this represents a minimum viable level of completeness.

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 (no descriptions in the input schema properties), the description provides all parameter documentation through the Args section. It clearly explains each parameter: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bsns_year (business year, 4-digit, 2015 onward), and reprt_code (report code with specific values). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter relationships or validation rules.

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: '소액주주 현황 - 정기보고서 내 소액주주 현황 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Minority shareholder status - provides minority shareholder status information within regular reports.' This specifies the verb (provides), resource (minority shareholder status information), and scope (within regular reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_largest_shareholder' or 'get_major_stockholding' that also provide shareholder information.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_largest_shareholder' or 'get_major_stockholding' that might provide related shareholder information, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use. The parameter documentation implies usage for specific corporate reports, but no explicit usage guidelines are provided.

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