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' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 tool's purpose and intended use. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Obtain historical TAIEX data') and adds value with the context ('for long-term trend analysis'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and effective.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the purpose and use case but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., data format, limitations) that would be needed for full contextual understanding. For a simple tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adequately sets expectations without redundancy, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.

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 historical TAIEX data for long-term trend analysis.' It specifies the verb ('obtain'), resource ('historical TAIEX data'), and intended use ('long-term trend analysis'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_taiwan_50_index_history' or 'get_taiwan_island_index_history', which might also provide historical index data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 usage guidance. It mentions 'long-term trend analysis,' which implies a context for use, but does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. other historical index tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are included, limiting its utility for decision-making.

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