OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the source ('주요사항보고서' - major report) and date constraints ('2015년 이후' - after 2015), but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Korean text is concise, and the Args section is well-organized. However, the English translation in parentheses could be more consistent ('시작일' translated as 'bgn_de' rather than 'start date').

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 (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the description could better address when to use this versus sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial parameter semantics. It explains that corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier, bgn_de is a start date in YYYYMMDD format after 2015, and end_de is an end date in YYYYMMDD format after 2015. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain validation rules or format constraints beyond the basic pattern.

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: '자기주식취득 신탁계약 체결 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 자기주식취득 신탁계약 체결 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides treasury stock acquisition trust contract decision information from major report). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('정보' - information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_treasury_stock_acquisition_decision' or 'get_treasury_trust_termination_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple treasury/stock-related sibling tools (get_treasury_stock_acquisition_decision, get_treasury_stock_disposal_decision, get_treasury_trust_termination_decision), there's no indication of how this specific trust contract decision tool differs or when it's appropriate versus those other tools.

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