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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only retrieval tool (implied by 'Get'), provides daily data, includes filtering capability, returns formatted strings with specific fields, and has limitations (no speaker/contact details). It also references an alternative for complete information, adding useful 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 well-structured and efficiently front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by elaboration on importance and filtering. The Args and Returns sections are clearly labeled, and the Note provides essential limitations without redundancy. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format details, and limitations. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values exhaustively, and it adequately addresses the gaps in schema coverage.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'code' parameter: it's optional, filters results by company stock code, and returns all announcements if empty. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameter's purpose and behavior clear.

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: 'Get daily major announcements from listed companies.' It specifies the resource (major announcements) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on material disclosures that impact stock prices, unlike other tools that handle trading data, financial statements, or governance information.

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 clear usage context: it retrieves announcements that 'may impact stock prices and investor decisions' and can filter by company code or get all announcements. It also notes an alternative for contact details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus specific sibling tools like get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements.

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