OpenDART MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides key accounts from XBRL financial statements, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify data format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose more prominently, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, errors). The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address usage context and operational traits, which are insufficient here.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'corp_code' as a unique 8-digit code, 'bsns_year' as a business year from 2015 onward, and 'reprt_code' with specific codes for quarterly/half-year/annual reports. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances (e.g., format examples for corp_code).

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: '단일회사 주요계정 - 단일회사의 XBRL 재무제표에서 주요계정을 제공합니다' (provides key accounts from a single company's XBRL financial statements). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '주요계정' (key accounts) with context about XBRL financial statements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_multi_company_accounts' or 'get_full_financial_statement', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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_multi_company_accounts' for multiple companies or 'get_full_financial_statement' for comprehensive data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit usage hint is the parameter descriptions, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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