TWSE MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the API may return empty data when there are no warrant trades for the day, and it returns a formatted string with specific data fields. The description doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness, but provides reasonable behavioral context for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 (description, Args, Returns, Note), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the opening defines scope, Args explains parameter behavior, Returns documents output format, and Note provides important caveats. No wasted words.

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 (single optional parameter, read-only data retrieval), the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter usage, return format, and important behavioral notes. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on semantics rather than repeating structured return value details.

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% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'code' parameter's purpose, optional nature, and filtering behavior. It clearly states that an empty code returns all warrant trading data, which adds crucial semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 daily trading data'), resource ('listed call/put warrants'), and scope ('daily trading volume and value statistics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_warrant_basic_info' by focusing on trading data rather than basic information, and from 'get_stock_daily_trading' by specifying warrants rather than stocks.

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: to retrieve daily trading statistics for warrants. It explicitly mentions checking 'warrant basic info' before querying trading data, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar data types.

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