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 and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies the tool retrieves daily closing info and statistics, outlines parameter defaults and constraints (e.g., count max of 50 for non-all categories), and describes output format options. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured 'Args' section with bullet points for each parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral context. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., data structure or examples) and does not address potential errors or side effects, which could be improved given the complexity.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all three parameters: it explains 'category' with enum values and translations, 'count' with default and max limits, and 'format' with output options. This adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema, ensuring parameters are well-understood.

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 with a specific verb ('Obtain') and resource ('daily market closing information and overall market statistics'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_market_historical_index' or 'get_taiwan_50_index_history' by focusing on daily data across multiple index categories rather than historical or specific index data.

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 for retrieving market index info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_market_historical_index' for historical data or 'get_taiwan_50_index_history' for a specific index. It provides parameter details that suggest context, but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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