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 the action ('obtain') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens with invalid codes. The description is minimal and lacks 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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) and only one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and a simple but potentially critical operation (fetching regulations), it could benefit from more context on usage constraints or data scope to fully guide an 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 description adds meaning by specifying that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive (e.g., no format examples or validation rules).

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 resource ('corporate governance regulations and rules') with specific targeting ('for a listed company based on its stock code'). It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on different company data types (e.g., financials, trading info, board details), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_company_governance_info' which might overlap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for governance regulations, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., company must be listed), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_company_governance_info' in the sibling list.

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