TWSE MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get stocks that have been disposed by the market,' which implies a read operation but doesn't specify details like data format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it leaves key behavioral aspects undefined.

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, clear sentence: 'Get stocks that have been disposed by the market.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly 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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is reduced. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data scope or format, which could be important for an AI agent. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any unnecessary complexity. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the schema fully covers this aspect.

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 'Get stocks that have been disposed by the market' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('stocks that have been disposed by the market'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_suspended_trading_stocks' or 'get_suspended_listed_companies', which might relate to similar market actions, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_suspended_trading_stocks'), there's no indication of how this differs or when it's appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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