TWSE MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the query criteria but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads all necessary information: 'Get companies with ownership changes that also have major business scope changes and were suspended from trading.' It is appropriately sized with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (querying companies with multiple criteria), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the criteria but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). With output schema covering returns, it meets basic needs but could be more complete for a query tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied because the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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: 'Get companies with ownership changes that also have major business scope changes and were suspended from trading.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('companies') with three specific criteria, making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_companies_with_ownership_changes' or 'get_companies_with_business_scope_changes', which would require a 5.

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. It lists the criteria but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., 'get_companies_with_ownership_changes' or 'get_companies_with_business_scope_changes'). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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