TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Obtain') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 exists, the description adds some value by clarifying the parameter. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks sufficient context on usage, behavior, and differentiation, making it only minimally complete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'code' refers to 'stock code' for a listed company. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low 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 target resource ('financial report acknowledgment by supervisors for a listed company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_supervisor_compensation' or 'get_company_governance_info', which might overlap in domain, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance by specifying 'based on its stock code', but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives, or exclusions compared to numerous sibling tools. Without context on when this tool is preferred over others, usage remains ambiguous.

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