［台美股題材與高股息］台股除權除息預告：除權息日、權或息、現金股利、配股比率，含 ETF（證交所 TWT48U）。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stocks__get_tw_ex_dividend"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | 代號篩選；不填回傳全部即將除權息 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope (includes ETFs) and data provenance (證交所 TWT48U), and the get_ verb implies a safe read, but it says nothing about freshness, how far ahead the preview extends, pagination, or auth requirements.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists output fields. The bracketed category tag is somewhat noisy but functions as a routing cue, and there is no filler prose.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields (date, rights/dividend type, cash dividend, stock ratio) does the job the missing output schema would have done. Coverage of the preview window and response format is still absent, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema itself explains the optional code filter and the all-results default. The description adds only marginal value by noting ETFs are covered, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific resource (台股除權除息預告 / Taiwan ex-rights & ex-dividend schedule) and enumerates the fields returned (除權息日, 權或息, 現金股利, 配股比率). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like stocks__get_tw_dividend or stocks__get_etf_dividends, so an agent must guess which of the overlapping dividend tools to pick.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, even though three sibling tools (get_tw_dividend, get_etf_dividends, estimate_etf_dividend_2027) cover adjacent dividend territory. Usage must be entirely inferred from the title-like phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.