TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'obtain' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or what 'fuel management information' entails (e.g., metrics, reports). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key input constraint.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., data source, limitations) and parameter nuances, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the output schema support.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema only indicates a 'code' parameter of type string without description. The description adds that it's a 'stock code', providing essential context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN) or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'obtain' and the resource 'fuel management information for a listed company', specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on other company aspects (e.g., financials, governance), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like get_company_energy_management or get_company_waste_management that might overlap in environmental/management themes.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid stock codes), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like get_company_energy_management, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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