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 'obtain' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, handles errors, or provides real-time vs. historical info. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('obtain') and resource ('product lifecycle information'). It efficiently specifies the input requirement ('based on its stock code') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and clear.

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 minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to cover outputs, but it should still address other gaps for better completeness.

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 schema provides no semantic context. The description adds that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies its purpose. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., ticker symbol), validation rules, or examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 'product lifecycle information for a listed company', specifying it's based on 'stock code'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on product lifecycle data rather than financials, governance, or trading info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_company_major_news, which might also provide company 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 minimal guidance: use when you need product lifecycle info for a listed company using its stock code. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it, mention prerequisites (e.g., valid stock code format), or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_company_profile for general info). This leaves the agent with little context for tool selection.

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