TWSE MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves data (read operation), explains the filtering capability, and details the comprehensive return format. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only tool.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but the detailed 'Returns' section listing 15 specific data points is quite lengthy. While informative, some of this detail might be better placed in an output schema. The structure is logical but could be more concise.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and detailed return values. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return structure, yet it still provides valuable semantic context about what data is returned.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'code' parameter in detail: 'Warrant code (optional). If provided, filters results for specific warrant. If empty, returns all warrant basic information.' This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get basic information of listed warrants' with specific details about what data is retrieved (warrant codes, types, exercise periods, underlying assets, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on warrants, while siblings cover stocks, companies, brokers, ETFs, and other financial instruments.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Retrieves comprehensive basic data for all listed warrants' and explains the optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like get_warrant_daily_trading or get_warrant_yearly_issuance_statistics).

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