get_ltp

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

The annotations include only openWorldHint: true, which is minimal. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns OHLC data in addition to LTP, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as latency, error handling, or whether it requires a valid token. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description gives some context beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. This is an example of efficient, targeted writing.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core return values (LTP and OHLC) even though there is no output schema. However, it does not mention possible limitations (e.g., exchange availability for certain symbols) or how it differs from other market data endpoints, which would be helpful. Despite this, the basic context is sufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats 'for a symbol' and mentions OHLC, which does not clarify parameter semantics further. The schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 tool's function: 'Get last traded price for a symbol' and adds that it also returns open, high, low, and close. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_market_quote or get_candle_data, so it does not fully meet the criteria for a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a symbol token from search_scrip) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over get_market_quote or get_candle_data. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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