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 states it 'obtains' information, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's real-time or historical, what format the output takes, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is inadequate 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 words. It could be slightly more structured by including usage context, but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for 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 that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code', which provides meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title and string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal addition doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, meeting the baseline for adequate but limited value.

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 verb 'obtain' and the resource 'waste management information for a listed company', specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings focused on other company data (e.g., financials, governance), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_company_water_management or get_company_energy_management.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid stock codes), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like get_company_water_management, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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