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. It discloses the automatic industry detection and format adaptation behavior, which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second detailing the automatic behavior in a bulleted list. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral context (industry detection), but could improve by addressing usage guidelines or more behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 is not covered in the schema (0% description coverage). This compensates well for the schema gap, though it does not detail format or validation rules for the code.

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 specific action ('obtain comprehensive income statement') and resource ('listed company based on its stock code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_balance_sheet or get_company_monthly_revenue by focusing on income statements. It also specifies the scope of automatic industry detection and format adaptation.

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 implies usage for income statements of listed companies via stock codes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_public_company_income_statement) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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