finstack-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content ('current price, change, volume, market cap, and key ratios') and data freshness ('real-time'), which compensates partially for the lack of output schema visibility. However, it omits operational details like rate limits, caching behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid symbols.

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 employs a clear docstring structure with distinct sections for purpose, returns, arguments, and examples. Every sentence earns its place: the opening defines scope, the returns clause previews output, and the examples demonstrate valid inputs. No redundancy or fluff present.

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 (single parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage by documenting the parameter semantics and summarizing return values. It appropriately delegates detailed return structure to the output schema while providing sufficient high-level context for agent selection.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The description explicitly defines the 'symbol' parameter as 'BSE stock symbol' and provides concrete, realistic examples (RELIANCE, TCS, INFY) that clarify the expected format and content, effectively substituting for the missing schema documentation.

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 retrieves 'real-time BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) quote' using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'quote'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like crypto_price, forex_rate, and nse_quote through explicit BSE naming. However, it does not clarify its relationship to the generic 'stock_quote' sibling, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 implies usage through BSE-specific naming and provides concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS), but offers no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'nse_quote' or 'stock_quote'. It lacks 'when-not-to-use' guidance or comparisons to sibling quote tools.

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