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 retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the nature of the returned data (e.g., format, completeness). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core 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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for safe and effective use, such as error scenarios or data freshness, which could be important for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds some semantic context by indicating the parameter 'code' refers to a 'stock code'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it does not provide details on format, validation, or examples, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('food safety information for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_company_product_quality_safety', which might cover similar domains, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other company-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts to aid selection.

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