台股上市公司股利分派：現金股利、股票股利（元／股）、決議進度、董事會日與股東會日期（證交所 OpenAPI）。
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": "get_tw_dividend"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | 股票代號，例：2330；不填回傳最新公告 |
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 must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the upstream data source (TWSE OpenAPI) and the categories of data returned, which implies a safe read-only lookup, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, freshness/latency, or rate limits.
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 front-loads the resource and then enumerates the fields, with no filler. It could be marginally clearer by naming the implicit 'get' action or the sibling distinction, but it wastes nothing.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description covers the returned content well (dividend types, amounts, resolution status, key dates). For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; only usage routing and return-format details remain missing.
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 one parameter, 100% schema description coverage, and a 0% required-parameter set, the schema already documents the code argument (example 2330, empty returns latest announcement). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific resource (Taiwan listed-company dividend distribution) and enumerates the content returned: cash dividends, stock dividends in NT$/share, resolution progress, board and shareholder meeting dates, plus the data source (TWSE OpenAPI). This clearly separates it from ETF siblings like get_etf_dividends, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the close sibling get_tw_ex_dividend.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tw_ex_dividend or get_etf_dividends, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage hint (leaving code empty returns the latest announcement) lives in the schema, not the description.
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.