TWSE MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Obtain historical data' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'historical data' includes (time range, granularity, format), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like. This leaves significant 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'historical data' means in practice (time periods, data points included), how results are structured, or how this differs from other index history tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 historical data') and resource ('Taiwan Island Stock Price Index'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_taiwan_50_index_history' or 'get_market_historical_index', which appear to serve similar historical index data functions.

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. With many sibling tools related to market indices and historical data (e.g., 'get_taiwan_50_index_history', 'get_market_historical_index'), there's no indication of what makes this specific Taiwan Island Index tool distinct or when it should be preferred.

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