TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output format ('JSON string object'), which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what 'basic information' includes, whether there are rate limits or authentication requirements, if the data is real-time or historical, or error handling for invalid codes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes: 'Obtain' (action), 'basic information' (scope), 'listed company' (resource), 'JSON string object' (output format), and 'stock code' (input). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 likely defines the JSON structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like data freshness or error cases. The description is adequate as a minimal overview but lacks depth for a tool that might involve external data fetching.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying it's a 'stock code', which clarifies the input beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well. However, it doesn't provide examples or format details (e.g., ticker symbol conventions), leaving some ambiguity.

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'), resource ('basic information of a listed company'), and output format ('as a JSON string object'). It specifies the input parameter ('based on its stock code'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_public_company_profile' or other company-specific tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools focused on specific company data aspects (e.g., 'get_company_balance_sheet', 'get_company_major_shareholders'), there's no indication that this tool provides 'basic information' as opposed to more detailed or specialized data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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