Zerodha MCP Integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (gets historical data) but provides minimal behavioral context: no information about authentication needs, rate limits, data format returned, pagination, error conditions, or what 'historical data' specifically entails (e.g., OHLC candles, volume). The description is functional but lacks transparency about operational behavior.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the tool's function, and the Args section documents parameters. However, the structure could be improved by integrating parameter explanations more naturally rather than a separate Args section, and some information is under-specified (e.g., 'etc.' for intervals).

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers basic functionality and parameters but lacks critical context: no information about return format (what 'historical data' looks like), error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data limitations. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about proper usage and expected outcomes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for all 4 parameters: identifies instrument_token as the instrument identifier, from_date/to_date as date range with format examples, and interval as candle interval with examples. However, it doesn't explain what an 'instrument token' is, valid date ranges, or comprehensive interval options beyond 'minute, day, 3minute, etc.' The description adds value but leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 historical data for an instrument' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical data for an instrument'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., get_quote, get_holdings) by focusing on historical time-series data rather than current quotes or account information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible historical data tools if they existed.

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. While the name suggests it's for historical data (unlike get_quote for current data), there's no explicit mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context for usage. The parameter documentation implies usage for date ranges and intervals but offers no strategic guidance.

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