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 information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured Args section. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized for quick understanding, though minor formatting issues (e.g., indentation) slightly affect structure.

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 (context signals indicate true), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a focus on financial data retrieval, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data freshness, limitations, or error cases. The parameter documentation is strong, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing operational context.

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 three parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with semantic details: corp_code is an 8-digit unique number, bsns_year is a 4-digit business year from 2015 onward, and reprt_code specifies report types with codes. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters clear and usable.

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: '증자(감자) 현황 - 정기보고서 내 증자/감자 현황 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Stock issuance/reduction status - provides information on stock issuance/reduction status within periodic reports.' This specifies the verb (provides information) and resource (stock issuance/reduction status from reports). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on stock issuance/reduction status specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from other stock-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_capital_reduction, get_paid_capital_increase). Usage is implied only by the description's focus on stock issuance/reduction status in reports.

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