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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it retrieves ranking statistics, specifies the data includes both individual stocks and ETFs, and details the return format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations are absent, the description adds substantial value but could be more comprehensive.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the data scope, the third provides usage context, and the fourth details the return format. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It fully explains the tool's purpose, output format, and usage context without needing to cover inputs or behavioral annotations. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond what's provided, and it adequately addresses all necessary aspects for a read-only ranking tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on output semantics instead. This compensates well for the lack of parameters, providing clear information on what the tool returns without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get top 10 securities by number of regular investment accounts (定期定額).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('securities'), and scope ('top 10'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_brokers_offering_regular_investment' by focusing on ranking rather than broker data. The additional context about retrieving ranking statistics for stocks and ETFs further clarifies its unique function.

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 implies usage by stating it 'helps identify the most popular securities for systematic investment strategies,' suggesting it's for investment analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing to other ranking tools in the sibling list like 'get_top_20_volume_stocks' or 'get_top_foreign_holdings.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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