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 announcement') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on output format, data scope, or usage scenarios. With an output schema, return values are covered, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the tool requires no inputs, and the description does not mislead about parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get announcement of suspended buy-sell-same-day trading targets,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (announcement) and general context (suspended day trading targets) but lacks specificity about what the announcement contains or its format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_suspended_day_trading_history' by focusing on announcements rather than historical data, but could be more precise.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_suspended_trading_stocks' or 'get_daily_day_trading_targets.' This leaves the agent without context for selection among siblings.

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