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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying the exact return format (formatted string with 9 detailed fields) and the ranking scope (top 20). However, it lacks details on data freshness, potential rate limits, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a read operation.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second elaborates on return content, and the bulleted list details specific fields. Every sentence and bullet point earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (ranking data with multiple fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns. However, it could improve by mentioning data sources, update frequency, or any limitations, which would make it more complete for agent usage.

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 the 9 return fields with their meanings. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though a baseline of 4 is given since no input parameters exist.

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 top 20 companies') and resource ('by foreign and mainland China investment holdings'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on different financial data like trading stats, company profiles, or market indices. It precisely defines the scope and output content.

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 for retrieving rankings of foreign holdings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_foreign_investment_by_industry or other investment-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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