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 only states what data is provided without describing how the tool behaves: no information about response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 parameter explanations are concise yet informative. No unnecessary verbiage, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner.

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) and the description provides good parameter semantics, the main gap is behavioral transparency. For a financial data retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description should ideally mention whether this is a read-only operation, typical response structure, or any constraints beyond the parameters documented.

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 provides meaningful parameter documentation despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bsns_year as '사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, after 2015), and reprt_code with specific code mappings for different report types. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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: '신종자본증권 미상환 잔액 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information on outstanding balance of new capital securities). It specifies the resource (new capital securities balance) and context (within periodic reports), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contingent_capital_balance' or 'get_corporate_bond_balance' which might cover similar financial instruments.

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. While it mentions the data comes from '정기보고서' (periodic reports), it doesn't explain when this specific balance information is needed compared to other financial data tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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