ETF 查詢
etf_lookup以代號查台灣上市 ETF：名稱/發行投信/追蹤指數/市價/折溢價/費用率等基本資料。Look up a Taiwan-listed ETF by code (e.g. 0050).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ETF 代號，如 0050、00878 |
tw-finance
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
描述清楚列出會回傳的資料欄位，讓 agent 知道查詢結果的內容範圍。但沒有 annotations 提供安全或唯讀資訊，描述也未提及查無代號時的行為、資料更新時間或任何限制，因此行為透明度僅屬中等。
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
描述以單一雙語句完成，前半段直接點出用途，後半段補上英文對照與範例，無冗餘內容。資訊密度高且重點前置，符合簡潔結構標準。
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
工具只有一個已完整文件化的參數，無巢狀結構，複雜度低。描述已列出主要回傳欄位，足以讓 agent 判斷查詢結果類型；雖無 output schema，但對於簡單查詢工具而言已算完整。缺少的 sibling 分流說明在 usage_guidelines 已扣分，此處不重複懲罰。
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
輸入 schema 已 100% 說明 code 參數，且提供 0050、00878 範例。描述中的「e.g. 0050」與 schema 重複，僅略為強化格式概念，未在 schema 之外增加實質語意。
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
描述包含具體動詞「查」、明確資源「台灣上市 ETF」及代號查詢方式，並列出回傳欄位如名稱、發行投信、追蹤指數、市價、折溢價、費用率。與 sibling 如 etf_price_history、fund_lookup 能清楚區分，因為它專注於 ETF 基本資料而非歷史價格或基金資料。
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
描述暗示此工具用於以代號查詢 ETF 基本資料，但未明確說明何時不該使用，也未提到應改用 etf_price_history 或其他 sibling。使用情境是隱含的，而非明示的排除或替代指引。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clear boundaries, but there is notable overlap between data_series and etf_price_history/fund_nav_history, since all three can provide time-series data. market_sentiment and taiwan_market_overview also both expose Taiwan sentiment, creating potential selection ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
The data_* tools follow a clear prefix pattern, but the rest mix noun-style names (fx_rates, market_sentiment), object-action names (etf_lookup, fund_lookup), and generic verbs (search, fetch). The names are readable and understandable, but the overall convention is inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper edge of the ideal range and mostly reasonable for a Taiwan finance data server. However, several domain-specific wrappers duplicate capabilities already available through the generic data_* tools, so the set feels slightly heavier than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The generic data catalog plus data_point/data_query/data_series/data_table provides broad coverage for read-only financial data, and the domain tools cover ETFs, funds, FX, market overview, sentiment, and climate indicators. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit Taiwan stock-specific lookup or price history tool, but the search and generic data layers partially compensate.