TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtains' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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. It directly states what the tool does ('obtain margin trading and short selling balance information') and the scope ('for the market'), with zero wasted text. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., data latency, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a market data tool in a crowded sibling set, more guidance would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline for a no-parameter 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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are required or documented. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is given for tools with zero parameters, as there's no need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtain margin trading and short selling balance information for the market.' It specifies the verb ('obtain') and the resource ('margin trading and short selling balance information'), and the scope ('for the market') distinguishes it from company-specific tools in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other market-level tools like 'get_daily_market_trading_info' or 'get_cross_market_trading_info'.

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. With many sibling tools focused on market data (e.g., 'get_daily_market_trading_info', 'get_cross_market_trading_info'), there's no indication of whether this tool is for real-time data, historical data, or specific market segments. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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