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 states the tool 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'water resource management information' entails (e.g., metrics, reports). 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Obtain water resource management information') and includes essential context ('for a listed company based on its stock code'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks details on behavior, usage constraints, and parameter specifics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the parameter 'code' is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', providing context beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps for the single required parameter.

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 'water resource management information for a listed company', specifying it's based on a stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on other company aspects (e.g., financials, governance, trading), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar environmental tools like 'get_company_waste_management' or 'get_company_climate_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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when water management info is needed for a company with a known stock code. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., data availability), or alternatives (e.g., other environmental tools) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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