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 'obtain' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap 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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key parameter context.

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) and low complexity with 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it lacks completeness for safe and effective use, such as missing error cases or data scope.

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 meaning by specifying that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title and string type. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail format constraints.

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 target ('risk management policy information for a listed company'), specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on risk management policies rather than financials, governance, or other company data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company_governance_info or get_company_profile, which might overlap in scope. The description implies usage for risk management data but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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