TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'obtains' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool accessing security data, this lack of detail is a significant gap, as it leaves the agent unaware of operational constraints, warranting a score of 2.

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: 'Obtain information security data for a listed company based on its stock code.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (retrieving security data), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It defines the purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With the output schema covering return values, the description meets basic needs but has clear gaps, scoring a 3 as the minimum viable.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., ticker symbol conventions) or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3 for adding some semantics but not fully compensating.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtain information security data for a listed company based on its stock code.' It specifies the action ('obtain'), resource ('information security data'), and scope ('listed company'), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_company_risk_management' or 'get_company_information_disclosure_violations', which might overlap in security-related data. This clarity earns a 4, as it's specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'based on its stock code' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools that might retrieve similar data (e.g., 'get_company_risk_management'). Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions, resulting in a score of 2 for minimal usage direction.

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