TWSE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is obtained without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 handles return values), a single simple parameter, and no complex behavioral requirements, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and many similar siblings, it should provide more guidance on usage context and parameter specifics to be truly complete.

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 maps to the single 'code' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., ticker symbol format), validation rules, or examples. The description adds basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('supervisor compensation information for a listed company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_company_consolidated_supervisor_compensation' or 'get_company_director_compensation', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentioning 'based on its stock code' but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives among the many sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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