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 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'consolidated' means in practice. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This exemplifies 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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks depth on behavioral aspects and usage context. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in providing a fully informed tool selection.

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 minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It mentions the parameter 'code' as a 'stock code', providing basic context, but does not elaborate on format, examples, or constraints. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains inadequate for full clarity, aligning with the baseline for minimal parameter information.

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 supervisor compensation information for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_supervisor_compensation' or 'get_company_consolidated_director_compensation', which might cause confusion about what 'consolidated' entails or how it differs from non-consolidated versions.

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 by specifying the input ('based on its stock code'), but it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing from 'get_company_supervisor_compensation' or other compensation-related tools. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with insufficient direction for optimal tool selection.

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