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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what data format or time period the shareholdings cover, whether there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a tool accessing financial data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('Obtain board member shareholding details') and specifies the input requirement, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (financial data retrieval), the description is incomplete: it lacks behavioral context, and while an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the absence of annotations and low parameter coverage leaves gaps. The description covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough guidance for reliable use, especially with many similar sibling tools.

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 description mentions the parameter ('based on its stock code'), which aligns with the single 'code' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter format (e.g., ticker symbol conventions, validation rules). The description adds minimal value by naming the parameter but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap with specifics like expected input format or examples.

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 action ('Obtain') and resource ('board member shareholding details for a public company'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the input ('based on its stock code'), which helps distinguish it from tools that might use company names or other identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_company_board_shareholdings' or 'get_company_board_info', which could cause confusion.

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 by mentioning the input requirement ('based on its stock code'), but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to company board information (e.g., 'get_company_board_info', 'get_company_board_shareholdings'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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