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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the source ('주요사항보고서' - major reports) and date constraints ('2015년 이후' - after 2015), but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what format the information is returned in, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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: one stating the purpose and another detailing parameters. The Args section is well-structured with clear parameter explanations. No unnecessary information is included, though the Korean-only text might limit accessibility in multilingual contexts.

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 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and doesn't leverage the output schema's existence to clarify return values. For a data retrieval tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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%, but the description adds meaningful parameter context in the Args section: it explains 'corp_code' as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code) and date parameters with format 'YYYYMMDD' and constraint '2015년 이후' (after 2015). This compensates partially for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential semantic nuances (e.g., date validation, corp_code format examples).

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: '해외 증권시장 주권등 상장 - 주요사항보고서 내 해외 증권시장 주권등 상장 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides overseas securities market stock listing information from major reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '정보' (information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_overseas_delisting' or 'get_overseas_listing_decision' beyond the general domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints beyond date parameters, or compare it to related tools like 'get_overseas_delisting' or 'get_overseas_listing_decision'. Usage is implied only through parameter requirements.

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