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 only states what data is retrieved, without mentioning any traits like read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or output format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks front-loaded critical information and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient in communication.

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 of financial data tools and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'redemption data' includes, how it is structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more detail is needed to guide the agent 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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 central depository bond redemption data' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the resource ('central depository bond redemption data') but lacks a clear, distinct verb beyond 'get', and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_dividend_rights_schedule' or 'get_bond_redemption_schedule' (if they existed), which might offer similar financial data. The purpose is vague about what 'redemption data' entails.

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 focused on financial, trading, and company data, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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