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, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, what format the output takes, or any 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-formatted parameter documentation section. Both sentences earn their place, though the Korean text might require translation for some agents. No redundant information 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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about how the tool operates, what happens with invalid dates, or what 'summary information' entails. The parameter documentation is good, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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 3 parameters with clear explanations: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bgn_de (start date in YYYYMMDD format), and end_de (end date in YYYYMMDD format). With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description fully compensates and provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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: '주식의 포괄적 교환·이전 요약정보를 제공합니다' (provides summary information of comprehensive stock exchange/transfer in securities registration statements). It specifies the resource (stock exchange/transfer information) and verb (provides), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_exchange_transfer_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for different types of stock-related information. Given the many sibling tools with similar naming patterns, this is a significant gap.

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