TWSE MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic industry detection and format adaptation behavior, which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of industry-specific formats. There's no wasted text, though the bulleted list could be slightly condensed.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter meaning, and key behavioral aspect (industry detection). However, it lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title. However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or details about the industry detection logic.

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 ('balance sheet for a listed company'), specifying it's based on stock code. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company_income_statement' by focusing on balance sheets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_public_company_balance_sheet' (a sibling tool).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions automatic industry detection and format adaptation, but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_public_company_balance_sheet' (which might serve a similar purpose).

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