Zerodha MCP Integration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a token after login redirect, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no token is available. This is insufficient for a tool likely involved in security-sensitive operations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of authentication tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the token's format, validity, how it's used in subsequent requests, or potential errors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively in this 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters as per rules.

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 action ('Get') and the target resource ('the current request token after login redirect'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'initiate_login' or 'check_and_authenticate', which are related to authentication flow, preventing a score of 5.

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 implies usage after a login redirect, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'initiate_login' or 'check_and_authenticate'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios, leaving gaps in usage context.

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