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. It states it 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it returns real-time or historical data. For a tool with no annotations, 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools covering similar ESG topics, it lacks context on scope, data recency, or differentiation, leaving room for improvement in guiding effective use.

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 description adds that the parameter 'code' is a 'stock code', which provides meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title and 0% coverage. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., ticker symbols, ISIN codes) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this partial clarification earns a 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 clearly states the verb 'obtain' and the resource 'climate-related management information for a listed company', specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes from most siblings that focus on financial, trading, or governance data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other climate/ESG tools like 'get_company_greenhouse_gas_emissions' or 'get_company_energy_management'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid stock codes), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'get_company_energy_management' or 'get_company_greenhouse_gas_emissions' that might overlap in climate-related data.

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