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 states the tool 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, it lacks context on scope (e.g., what 'human development information' includes) and usage distinctions, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 description mentions 'based on its stock code,' which aligns with the single 'code' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like format examples (e.g., ticker symbols), validation rules, or what constitutes a valid 'listed company.' The baseline is 3 since it minimally compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('human development information for a listed company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_company_governance_info, which might also provide related corporate information.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on company data (e.g., get_company_profile, get_company_governance_info), the description lacks context about what 'human development information' entails or when it's preferred over other company information tools.

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