TWSE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Obtain') but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The mention of 'consolidated' hints at aggregated data, but lacks details on scope or format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It front-loads key information ('Obtain consolidated director compensation information') and avoids unnecessary words, 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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent, but lacks behavioral context, usage differentiation, and detailed parameter guidance. The output schema mitigates some completeness needs, but overall it's a bare-bones description for a data retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It mentions the parameter 'code' as 'stock code', clarifying it's for company identification, but doesn't specify format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN) or validation rules. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, the description adds some meaning but leaves gaps in usage 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 action ('Obtain') and resource ('consolidated director compensation information for a listed company'), specifying it's for a 'listed company' based on 'stock code'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_company_director_compensation' by emphasizing 'consolidated', but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 minimal guidance: it indicates the tool is for 'listed company' data using a 'stock code', but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_company_director_compensation' or 'get_company_consolidated_supervisor_compensation', leaving usage context vague.

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