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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'simplified' earnings forecast achievement, hinting at a high-level or aggregated output, but doesn't detail what 'simplified' entails, such as data granularity, time range, or calculation method. It lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which is critical for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context or behavioral notes, but it remains appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 1 parameter with low schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context but lacks depth. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like data sources, update frequency, or error cases. For a financial data tool with many siblings, more guidance on differentiation and usage would enhance 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 value by specifying that 'code' refers to a 'stock code' for a 'listed company,' clarifying its purpose beyond a generic string. However, it doesn't explain format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 resource ('quarterly earnings forecast achievement (simplified) for a listed company'), specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on earnings forecast achievement, unlike tools for balance sheets, trading info, or governance data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with a specific sibling tool for similar financial metrics.

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,' which implies usage for stock-traded entities but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_company_eps_statistics' or 'get_company_profitability_analysis.' No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little context for tool selection among financial data siblings.

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