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 states 'Get electronic trading statistics', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (statistics retrieval) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'electronic trading statistics' includes, how data is returned, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description needn't compensate for missing schema info.

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 'Get electronic trading statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('electronic trading statistics'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'electronic trading statistics' entails (e.g., time period, broker scope, metrics) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_real_time_trading_stats' or 'get_daily_market_trading_info', making it vague in context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to trading statistics (e.g., 'get_real_time_trading_stats', 'get_daily_market_trading_info'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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