Zerodha MCP Integration

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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what data format is returned, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any prerequisites like account setup. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. For a simple tool like this, the brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 financial context and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't specify what constitutes 'holdings/portfolio' (stocks, mutual funds, derivatives?), whether this returns current or historical data, or what authentication is required. For a financial data tool with no structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing or misleading about parameter 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's holdings/portfolio'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_mf_holdings', which appears to serve a similar but potentially different function (mutual fund holdings vs general holdings).

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 sibling tools like 'get_mf_holdings', 'get_positions', and 'get_historical_data' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or when it should be preferred over those alternatives.

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