TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description lacks behavioral traits beyond the basic output structure, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return fields. Each sentence and bullet point adds value without waste. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core function earlier, but overall, it's 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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating the purpose and output fields. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data sources, update frequency, or error handling, which are important for a stock data tool. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual depth.

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 parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output. This aligns with the schema's completeness, earning a high score as it avoids redundancy and correctly handles the parameter-less case.

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: 'Get stocks with abnormal accumulated notice counts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('stocks with abnormal accumulated notice counts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_today_notice_stocks' or others that might involve notices, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to stocks, notices, and trading data, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to tools like 'get_today_notice_stocks' or 'get_stock_daily_trading'. This lack of usage guidelines could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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