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 the tool '제공합니다' (provides) information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the information is provided in. The mention of date constraints (2015년 이후) is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a parameter section with bullet-like formatting. Each parameter explanation is brief but informative. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and documents all parameters with format constraints. However, for a financial data tool with many similar siblings, it lacks differentiation guidance and behavioral context about the reporting system it queries.

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 compensate. It provides parameter semantics for all three parameters: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bgn_de: 시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and 'end_de: 종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, establishing format constraints and temporal boundaries. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain the corp_code or how date ranges are interpreted.

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: '타법인 주식 및 출자증권 양도결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 타법인 주식 및 출자증권 양도결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides information on other corporation stock and equity securities transfer decisions within major matters reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information) with context about the source document. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition_decision' or 'get_stock_bond_transfer_decision', which appear related.

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 with similar names (e.g., 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition_decision', 'get_stock_bond_transfer_decision') that likely handle related financial disclosures, but the description doesn't explain what differentiates this specific transfer decision tool or when it should be selected over others.

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