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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify data sources, update frequency, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 minimal context by mentioning 'stock code' for the 'code' parameter. This provides basic meaning but lacks details like format, validation, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates 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 action ('Obtain') and the target resource ('product quality and safety information for a listed company'), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., get_company_food_safety, get_company_risk_management), which focus on specific aspects, but the general scope is well-defined.

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, stating it's for 'a listed company based on its stock code', but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like get_company_food_safety or get_company_risk_management. Usage context is implied but lacks specificity.

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