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 implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. The description mentions the source ('주요사항보고서 내' - from major reports) which adds some context, but doesn't explain what constitutes a 'mixed' capital increase or how the data is structured in the output.

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 documentation. The two-sentence format with a bulleted Args section is well-organized and front-loaded. There's no redundant information, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for non-Korean speaking agents.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It documents all parameters and states the purpose clearly. However, for a financial data tool with sibling alternatives, it should better explain what 'mixed' capital increases are and when to use this versus other capital increase tools to be fully complete.

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 documentation. The description includes an Args section that documents all three parameters with brief explanations in Korean: corp_code (고유번호), bgn_de (시작일), and end_de (종료일). It adds format constraints for dates (YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후) that aren't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain corp_code values or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: '유무상증자 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 유무상증자 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides information on mixed capital increase decisions from major reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides), resource ('유무상증자 결정 정보' - mixed capital increase decision information), and source ('주요사항보고서 내' - from major reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_free_capital_increase or get_paid_capital_increase, which likely cover related but different types of capital increases.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to capital increases (get_free_capital_increase, get_paid_capital_increase), but the description doesn't explain what distinguishes 'mixed' capital increases from 'free' or 'paid' ones, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints beyond the date range parameters.

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