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 states this '제공합니다' (provides) information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's a query, lookup, or data retrieval tool. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, error conditions, or data freshness is provided. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic purpose.

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 is appropriately concise, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated rather than in a separate Args section. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration is present.

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 basic documentation in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a financial data retrieval tool with sibling alternatives, it should provide more context about when to use it, what the output represents, and how it differs from related tools. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more complete contextual information.

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 an Args section that documents all three parameters with Korean explanations: corp_code (고유번호), bsns_year (사업연도), and reprt_code (보고서코드). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without descriptions. The description adds value by explaining what each parameter represents and providing reprt_code enum values, but doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., corp_code must be 8 digits, bsns_year must be ≥2015).

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: '회계감사인과의 비감사용역 계약체결 현황 - 정기보고서 내 회계감사인과의 비감사용역 계약체결 현황 정보를 제공합니다' (provides information about non-audit service contracts with accounting auditors in periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_audit_service_contract' beyond the 'non-audit' distinction in the name.

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_audit_service_contract' for audit contracts or other financial reporting tools. There's no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations beyond the parameter requirements.

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