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 information is provided, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of returned data. For a tool with 3 required parameters and an output schema, this is insufficient 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by clearly formatted parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place, though the purpose statement could be slightly more specific about what '정보를 제공합니다' entails.

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's complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The parameter explanations are excellent, but the lack of behavioral context (permissions, rate limits, data format) and usage guidelines leaves gaps. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual elements are missing.

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 excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bgn_de as '시작일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (start date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015), and end_de as '종료일(YYYYMMDD, 2015년 이후)' (end date in YYYYMMDD format, after 2015). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: '회생절차 개시신청 - 주요사항보고서 내 회생절차 개시신청 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides rehabilitation procedure commencement application information within the major matters report). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '회생절차 개시신청 정보' (rehabilitation procedure commencement application information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also provide financial/legal information about companies.

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 any prerequisites, constraints beyond date parameters, or suggest other tools for related queries. The user must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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