台股即時行情：加權指數、櫃買指數、權值股與熱門 ETF（證交所基本市況報導，盤中即時、可能略有延遲）。可指定任意台股代號（含上櫃、ETF）。
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_market_quotes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | No | 台股代號，例：["2330","0050"]；不填回傳大盤與熱門股 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the data source (TWSE basic market report) and the freshness trait (intraday real-time, possibly slightly delayed), which is real context beyond the schema. However it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, so gaps remain for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and followed by the code-scope note; no filler. It could be marginally tighter but every clause carries information.
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 single optional-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what is returned, the data source, freshness, and the code scope. Only operational details (auth, rate limits, pagination) are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning on top: it clarifies the accepted code scope explicitly includes OTC-listed and ETF symbols, which the schema only hints at via the '0050' example. That clarification earns an above-baseline score.
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 names a specific resource (Taiwan market quotes) and enumerates exactly what it returns: weighted index, OTC index, heavyweight stocks, and popular ETFs, plus arbitrary TW codes. It is clearly distinguishable in content from dividend/chip/news siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the overlapping get_stock or the parallel get_us_quotes.
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?
It conveys implied usage (leave codes empty for the market overview, pass codes for individual names) but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as get_stock for single-stock lookups or get_us_quotes for the US market. An agent must infer routing from content alone.
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.