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. It describes the return format in detail, which is helpful, but lacks behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations, but it misses key operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for a simple query tool. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like data sources or update frequency, but it's largely adequate.

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 appropriately focuses on output semantics, listing return fields. This adds value beyond the schema, though it's not about input 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get stocks announced as notice stocks today') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on today's notice stocks, unlike tools like 'get_abnormal_accumulated_notice_stocks' or general trading tools. It specifies the resource (stocks) and temporal scope (today).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'today,' suggesting it's for current announcements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_abnormal_accumulated_notice_stocks' or other date-specific tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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