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' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the statements are in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, 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 retrieving 'monthly statements' (likely financial data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the statements contain, their format, time range, or how results are returned, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 monthly statements for brokers' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (monthly statements for brokers), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_broker_basic_info' or 'get_broker_income_expenditure' that also retrieve broker-related data, so it doesn't fully distinguish its unique scope.

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 for broker data (e.g., 'get_broker_basic_info', 'get_broker_income_expenditure'), it lacks context on specific use cases, 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.