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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what time period is covered, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how the data is structured in the output. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key information about what data is obtained.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's main job is to explain purpose and usage. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects or usage guidelines. It's adequate for understanding what the tool does at a high level but incomplete for proper agent invocation.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'stock code' which corresponds to the 'code' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context about what format the code should be in (e.g., ticker symbol, ISIN), what validation occurs, or examples of valid values. This leaves the parameter meaningfully under-documented.

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 specific verbs ('obtain daily closing price and monthly average price') and identifies the resource ('listed company stock based on its stock code'). It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on different data types (e.g., governance, trading info, financials), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar stock price tools like get_stock_daily_trading or get_stock_monthly_trading.

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 when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_stock_daily_trading or get_stock_monthly_trading that might provide overlapping or complementary data.

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