TWSE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify data format, potential errors (e.g., invalid stock codes), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and a sibling tool that may overlap, the description lacks sufficient context for reliable use, such as error handling or data scope clarification.

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% description coverage, with one parameter 'code' undocumented. The description adds some meaning by specifying 'stock code', clarifying it's for a listed company, but does not detail format (e.g., ticker symbol, numeric code) or validation rules. This provides basic context but falls short of fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 verb ('obtain') and resource ('anti-competitive litigation losses information for a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_companies_with_anticompetitive_losses', which appears to be a broader list tool, leaving some ambiguity about 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, such as the sibling 'get_companies_with_anticompetitive_losses' or other company data tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, offering minimal direction for selection.

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