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. While it states what data is retrieved, it doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is simplified. It adequately explains what data is retrieved, but with no annotations and many sibling tools, it could benefit from more context about data scope or limitations. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, keeping the description minimally viable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary details.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('board members' pledged shares as a percentage of their actual holdings'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_board_shareholdings' or 'get_company_board_insufficient_shares', which likely provide related but different data about board member holdings.

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. With many sibling tools focused on company board data (e.g., 'get_company_board_shareholdings', 'get_company_board_insufficient_shares'), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's specific focus on pledged shares percentage from other board-related metrics.

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