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. While it mentions the resource type and date constraints, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it returns paginated results, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 parameter documentation. The bilingual approach (Korean purpose, English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but functional. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste, though the formatting could be cleaner.

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 (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a financial data retrieval tool with sibling alternatives, it should provide more differentiation and 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 explicitly documents all three parameters with their Korean names and constraints (corp_code: 8-digit unique number, bgn_de/end_de: YYYYMMDD format after 2015). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this parameter documentation in the description is essential and adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain corp_codes or provide examples of valid values.

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: '자기주식 취득 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 자기주식 취득 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides treasury stock acquisition decision information within major reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('자기주식 취득 결정 정보' - treasury stock acquisition decision information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_treasury_stock_disposal_decision' or 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition_decision'.

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, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other treasury stock or acquisition-related tools in the list. The only implicit guidance is the date range constraint (2015년 이후 - after 2015).

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