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 implies a read-only operation by using 'Get' and details the output format, which adds value. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves market data retrieval.

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 with the purpose, followed by a clear list of returned statistics. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the list of statistics is somewhat lengthy but necessary for clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it concise and organized.

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 complexity (market statistics retrieval) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the output format in detail, which helps, but does not cover behavioral aspects like data sources, update frequency, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by detailing the output structure, compensating for the lack of an output schema, but since parameters are absent, a baseline of 4 is applied.

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 market statistics of rising and falling securities.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('market statistics'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, such as 'get_daily_market_trading_info' or 'get_real_time_trading_stats', which might overlap in scope, so it lacks sibling distinction for 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. It lists the returned statistics but does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_daily_market_trading_info'), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent uncertain about selection.

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