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 implies a read-only operation ('obtain') but does not specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The mention of 'untransferred' shares adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered for a tool with no annotation support.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks depth in usage guidelines, behavioral details, and integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 meaning by clarifying that the 'code' parameter refers to a 'stock code' for a listed company, which is not evident from the schema alone (0% coverage). However, it does not provide further details such as format examples (e.g., ticker symbols), validation rules, or how the code maps to the company, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 transfers that have not yet been executed for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_daily_insider_trades_preannounced', which appears related but is not directly contrasted in the description.

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 explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the preannounced trades sibling or other company data tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application.

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