trademcp_get_market_breadth

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false and openWorld. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the trend calculation is 'slower' (a latency signal) and precisely what statistics are produced. It doesn't discuss rate limits, error behavior, or index validity handling.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose and the body enumerates outputs efficiently. The Args/Returns blocks are partly redundant with the fully described schema and output schema, slightly diluting conciseness.

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?

With an output schema, complete annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only missing element is guidance on picking this tool over sibling analysis tools.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the 'slower' caveat on include_trend and the JSON/markdown enum. The Args section largely restates the schema, adding no new syntax, defaults, 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 (measure) and resource (market breadth for an Indian index) and enumerates the concrete outputs: advancers/decliners, average and median move, gainers/losers. It does not contrast itself with adjacent siblings like get_index_snapshot or get_technical_analysis, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied by the description of what it computes, and 'Optionally adds ... the classic trend-breadth gauge' gives some context for include_trend. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 13 siblings.

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