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 operation ('get') but lacks behavioral details such as data sources, update frequency, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and does not disclose any traits beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is front-loaded but under-specified—while concise, it lacks necessary detail for clarity, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (involving stock price changes) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'range' entails, the return format, or any constraints, making it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description need not compensate for missing param info.

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 stock price increase/decrease range' states a vague purpose—it's unclear what 'range' means (e.g., time period, percentage range, or price range) and lacks specificity about the resource (e.g., which stocks, market). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on price changes, but the verb 'get' is generic, and the scope is not clearly defined compared to tools like 'get_stock_daily_trading' or 'get_market_gain_loss_statistics'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to stock data (e.g., 'get_stock_daily_trading', 'get_market_gain_loss_statistics'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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