get_fno_trade_setup

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses outputs (action, confidence, strike zone, factors, risk flags) but does not mention data freshness, fallbacks, or any potential side effects. Sufficient but could be more transparent.

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?

Five sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by output details. Generally concise but could tighten phrasing. No unnecessary words, but one or two sentences could be combined.

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 one optional parameter with default and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (action, confidence_pct, strike zone, approve_message, factors, risk flags). Appropriate for a decision support tool with limited parameters.

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?

Only one parameter 'symbol' with default 'NIFTY'. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description explicitly states it works for 'NIFTY / BANKNIFTY', implying the parameter accepts these values. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit.

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 builds an options setup for NIFTY/BANKNIFTY intraday decisions. It specifies the verb 'build', the resource 'options setup', and the scope (intraday, NIFTY/BANKNIFTY). It lists included indicators and outputs, making it distinct from sibling tools which focus on other data.

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 for intraday options decisions on NIFTY/BANKNIFTY. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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