OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the batch capability and input constraints (comma-separated, up to 100 corp codes), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentences followed by parameter details. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second explains the batch constraint. The Args section is well-structured but could be more integrated. Minor improvement possible by combining the constraint note with the parameter explanation, but overall efficient 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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks output information. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't hint at return structure or data format. For a financial data retrieval tool with multiple siblings, more context about what '주요계정' includes and how results are organized would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic information for all three parameters: corp_code format (8-digit, comma-separated up to 100), bsns_year range (4-digit, 2015+), and reprt_code mappings (11013:Q1, 11012:半期, 11014:Q3, 11011:annual report). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, explaining formats, constraints, and code meanings that aren't in the schema.

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: '여러 회사의 주요계정을 일괄 조회합니다' (batch retrieval of major accounts for multiple companies). It specifies the verb '조회합니다' (retrieve/query) and resource '주요계정' (major accounts), and distinguishes from sibling 'get_single_company_accounts' by emphasizing multi-company batch capability. However, it doesn't fully explain what '주요계정' entails compared to other financial data tools.

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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., '2015년 이후' for bsns_year, report code mappings), suggesting when data is available. It distinguishes from 'get_single_company_accounts' by mentioning multi-company capability. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other financial data tools like 'get_full_financial_statement' or 'get_multi_financial_index', nor any prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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