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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the API returns news in Chinese with dates in a specific format (民國年), explains default behaviors for empty parameters, and notes the tool is for retrieval (implied read-only). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but covers essential 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, details, args, note, returns) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more concise, as some details might overlap with output schema (which exists).

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral notes, and return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively, and it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains both parameters (start_date, end_date) with format requirements (YYYYMMDD), default values, and usage rules (e.g., if both empty returns current month's news). This adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest news from Taiwan Stock Exchange'), including scope ('with optional date filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on news announcements rather than financial data, stocks, or company-specific information.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (retrieving official news announcements including market updates, regulatory changes, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from most siblings.

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