trademcp_get_valuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the response sections ('valuation', 'growth_context', 'verdict', optional 'peers') and that a plain-English cheap/expensive verdict is computed, which the agent could not know from annotations alone.

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 is front-loaded and delivers the purpose immediately, and the metric list is dense and useful. The Args/Returns blocks duplicate the input schema and output schema, which is mild waste but standard for this format.

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 present, the description still helpfully names the return sections, and it scopes the tool to Indian/NSE stocks, which is important context. Minor gaps: no mention of data freshness, caching, or whether non-NSE symbols are rejected.

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 Args block largely restates what the schema already says ('symbol: NSE symbol or company name', 'response_format: markdown or json'). The 'peers' note adds a small amount of meaning (same-industry comparison) but nothing beyond the schema's own description.

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 a focused valuation sheet for an Indian stock') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related trademcp_get_fundamentals sibling, leaving that overlap for the agent to infer.

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 word 'focused' and the enumerated valuation metrics imply this is the narrow valuation-only view, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance. With siblings like get_fundamentals and compare_stocks in the same family, an agent must guess which to pick.

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