Indian Stock Exchange API2 MCP Server

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, yet reveals nothing about the operation's safety profile, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or what specific corporate action types are returned.

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?

While brief at only four words, this represents under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. No sentence earns its place because the content adds minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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?

For a financial data tool with many siblings, the description inadequately explains the scope of returned data or output format. The lack of output schema increases the burden on the description, which fails to compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the 'stock_name' parameter has a description with an example value), the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately covers the single input field.

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 'Get Corporate Actions Data' essentially restates the tool name with a generic verb added, constituting a near-tautology. It fails to specify what corporate actions entail (dividends, splits, mergers, etc.) or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'historical_data' or 'get_stock_data_by_name'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description contains no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'historical_data', nor does it mention prerequisites or scoping limitations.

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