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. It states it 'obtains' information, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'inclusive finance information' entails (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, making it easy 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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'inclusive finance information' includes, potential errors, or usage scenarios, leaving gaps despite the output schema covering return structure.

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 semantics: it implies the 'code' parameter is a stock code for a listed company. However, with 0% schema description coverage (the schema only lists 'code' as a string), the description doesn't compensate by detailing format (e.g., ticker symbol conventions), validation, or examples. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward, but it lacks enrichment.

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 'inclusive finance information for a listed company', specifying it's based on a stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on different company data (e.g., financial reports, governance, trading info), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_companies_with_inclusive_finance_data', which might retrieve a list rather than details for a single company.

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 it to sibling tools like 'get_companies_with_inclusive_finance_data' for broader queries. Usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.

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