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 only states the basic action ('Get quote') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a parameter example. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the example more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication needs, and how it fits with siblings, making it insufficient for reliable agent use in this financial 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds an example for the 'symbols' parameter (e.g., ['NSE:INFY', 'BSE:RELIANCE']), which clarifies format and provides context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain symbol conventions, limits, or other constraints, leaving 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get quote for symbols', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_historical_data' or 'get_mf_instruments', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this quote retrieval from other data-fetching operations.

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 siblings like 'get_historical_data' and 'get_mf_instruments', there's no indication of whether this is for real-time quotes, specific asset types, or other contexts, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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