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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions obtaining violations but does not specify aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., types of violations, time ranges). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (focused on regulatory violations), no annotations, and an output schema present (which may cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the input and purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without relying on the output schema.

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, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'code' refers to a 'stock code' for a listed company. However, it does not provide details on format (e.g., ticker symbol conventions) or examples, so while it compensates somewhat, it does not fully address the coverage gap.

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 action ('obtain') and the specific resource ('information disclosure and shareholder meeting regulation violations for a listed company'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_sec_regulatory_penalties' or 'get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements', which might overlap in regulatory contexts, so it 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 minimal guidance by specifying the input ('based on its stock code'), but it does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other company violation or regulatory tools in the sibling list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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