Retrieves bounded Taiwan market evidence from a single execute-mode request, resolving targets and data needs into auditable results.
Perform one bounded conversation-triggered market-evidence retrieval from a canonical execute-mode request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects or non-idempotency. It adds only the vague terms 'bounded' and 'conversation-triggered' without clarifying what that means for behavior, nor does it disclose any effects beyond 'retrieval'.
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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks front-loaded crucial details and reads as a placeholder.
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?
The tool has high complexity (nested object with many fields, no output schema) yet the description offers almost no guidance on invocation, return expectations, or pitfalls. An agent would struggle to use it correctly based solely on this.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely refers to 'a canonical execute-mode request' without explaining the request's structure, required fields, or how to construct it. Given the heavily nested schema, this is a critical omission.
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 identifies a verb ('retrieval') and resource ('market-evidence') and mentions 'execute-mode request' which hints at differentiation from preview/validate siblings. However, the terms 'bounded' and 'conversation-triggered' are vague and unexplained, leaving the precise purpose ambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies an execute-mode context but never names sibling tools or conditions for selection. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'execute-mode request' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.