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 indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information), but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main functionality. While efficient, the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of obvious information like '8자리' for corp_code.

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 description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral context that would be important for reliable usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides parameter documentation in Korean that explains each parameter's purpose: corp_code (고유번호), bsns_year (사업연도), and reprt_code (보고서코드 with specific code values). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage by explaining data formats or constraints.

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: '미등기임원 보수현황 - 정기보고서 내 미등기임원 보수현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides information on unregistered executive compensation in periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '미등기임원 보수현황 정보' (unregistered executive compensation information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_compensation_by_type' or 'get_individual_compensation' that also handle compensation data.

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. While it mentions '정기보고서' (periodic reports), it doesn't specify which types of compensation queries this tool handles versus other compensation-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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