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 states the tool's function but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format entails. 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter context without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral details like safety or performance traits, which are important since no annotations are provided. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying that 'code' refers to a 'stock code' for a 'listed company,' which clarifies its semantics beyond the schema's minimal title. Since there are 0 parameters with schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format constraints like length or allowed characters.

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 target resource ('director compensation information for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on director compensation rather than other company data like financial reports or governance info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_company_consolidated_director_compensation.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a listed company based on its stock code,' which suggests when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_company_consolidated_director_compensation or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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