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 states the tool retrieves information (a read operation), but doesn't specify data sources, accuracy, update frequency, or output format. While the presence of an output schema helps, the description lacks context on limitations or reliability, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, scope limitations) that would be helpful despite the output schema. For a read-only tool with no annotations, more detail on reliability or constraints would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for missing param info (none needed) but also doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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 information about whether company chairmen also serve as CEOs.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('company chairmen'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on dual CEO/chairman roles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar governance tools like 'get_company_board_info' or 'get_company_governance_info', which might overlap in scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any of the many sibling tools that might provide related governance or company information. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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