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 implies a read operation ('Obtain') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a regulatory data tool, this omission is significant, though not contradictory.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the purpose. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (regulatory data retrieval), no annotations, and an output schema present (which may cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or parameter nuances, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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 minimal semantics by specifying 'stock code' as the input, but the schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter ('code'). Since the description does not elaborate on format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN) or constraints, it provides basic context but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage, aligning with the baseline for limited parameter info.

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 ('SEC regulatory penalty information for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_information_disclosure_violations' or 'get_company_anticompetitive_litigation', which might overlap in regulatory contexts, so it falls short of 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, such as other regulatory or company-specific tools in the sibling list. It mentions the input parameter ('stock code') but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.

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