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 'Obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical or current data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter nuances, making it only adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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' documented only as a string. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'stock code' as the input, which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it does not provide format details, examples, or constraints, resulting in a baseline score due to the schema's lack of coverage.

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 action ('Obtain') and resource ('dividend distribution information of a listed company'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dividend_rights_schedule' or others that might involve dividends, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded sibling set.

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 other dividend-related tools in the sibling list. It mentions the input parameter ('stock code') but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, which limits its utility for an AI agent in selecting the right tool.

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