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 clarify aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency, as the agent lacks critical operational context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the necessary information without redundancy or unnecessary detail, 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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and one parameter, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or parameter details, making it incomplete for effective agent operation despite the output schema.

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. It mentions 'based on its stock code,' which aligns with the 'code' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description does not explain what format the code should be in (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN) or provide examples, leaving the parameter meaning vague. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but the description does not fully compensate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtain energy management information for a listed company based on its stock code.' It specifies the verb ('obtain'), resource ('energy management information'), and scope ('listed company'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_climate_management' or 'get_company_waste_management', which might overlap in environmental or sustainability data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, such as when energy management data is needed versus other company information tools. With many sibling tools available, the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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