TWSE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Obtain') but doesn't cover critical aspects like data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. historical), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination. The description is too sparse for a tool that likely accesses financial data.

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 unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no 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 the tool's moderate complexity (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses key contextual details like data source, update frequency, or usage constraints, leaving gaps in completeness for practical agent 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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It mentions the parameter is 'based on its stock code', but doesn't clarify the code format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN), validation rules, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, resulting in an adequate but incomplete understanding.

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 ('daily insider share transfer pre-announcements for a listed company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_daily_insider_trades_untransferred', which appears to cover a related but distinct aspect of insider trades.

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 parameter ('based on its stock code'), but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tool for untransferred trades or other company data tools. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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