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 describes pagination behavior (page_size, page_number defaults and limits) and sorting capabilities (order_by fields, order_direction), which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds some behavioral context but 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clear 'Args:' section with detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information. The bilingual field explanations in order_by are particularly helpful. Minor improvement could be front-loading more behavioral context before the parameter details.

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 (4 parameters, financial data aggregation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context about the data source, update frequency, or typical use cases.

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 provides extensive parameter semantics beyond what the input schema offers. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in detail: page_size (default, max), page_number (default, starting point), order_by (available fields with bilingual explanations), and order_direction (values, default). This adds crucial meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 profitability analysis query summary table (all companies aggregate report).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('profitability analysis query summary table'), and scope ('all companies aggregate report'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_profitability_analysis', which appears to be a similar tool for individual company analysis.

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. While it mentions 'all companies aggregate report,' it doesn't clarify when to choose this aggregate view over individual company analysis tools like 'get_company_profitability_analysis' or other financial reporting tools in the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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