get_quote

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a hard prerequisite (paid Kite Connect subscription with market data access, excluded from free Personal tier) and the batch cap. It says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, or failure behavior for invalid/expired instruments, which matter for this endpoint.

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, both earning their place: the first defines scope and payload, the second flags the access prerequisite. Front-loaded with the value proposition before the caveat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what data comes back, the batch limit, and the subscription gate — the key thing an agent must check before calling. Only rate-limit and error semantics are absent.

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 100% and the schema already documents the instruments array, its format ("EXCHANGE:TRADINGSYMBOL"), and the 50-item maximum. The description restates the cap but adds no new meaning about format or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get full market quote') and enumerates the returned fields (price, depth, OHLC, volume), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_ltp and get_ohlc. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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: the 'full quote' framing plus the field list suggests this is the richer alternative to get_ltp/get_ohlc, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With 35 siblings, an explicit contrast would have been valuable.

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