get_ohlc

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it does disclose the key access prerequisite (paid Kite Connect subscription with market data, not free Personal tier) and the read-only nature implied by "Get." It omits real-time vs delayed data, rate limits, and any failure behavior when the subscription is missing, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the capability and its scope come first, and the access prerequisite follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (OHLC fields) and the access gate. It would be stronger if it clarified snapshot freshness/real-time semantics or how it differs from get_quote and get_ltp, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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 coverage is 100% — the single `instruments` parameter already documents the "EXCHANGE:TRADINGSYMBOL" format with examples and the maxItems/minItems bounds. The description's "up to 50 instruments" merely restates the schema's maxItems, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get OHLC ... snapshot") plus the scope limit of 50 instruments, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It implicitly contrasts with get_historical_data via "snapshot," but never names a sibling to differentiate against quote/LTP tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "snapshot" and the subscription prerequisite; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_ltp, get_quote, or get_historical_data, all of which return overlapping price data. The one concrete gate it does give — paid market-data subscription required — is genuinely useful for deciding whether the call will succeed.

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