nse_52week_scanner

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively explains the tool's behavior: scanning based on scan_type and threshold_pct. It does not disclose potential rate limits or data freshness, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise, consisting of a brief introductory paragraph, a structured Args section, and clear examples. Every sentence contributes meaning, no fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter explanations, and usage guidance. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: scan_type (with three options and default) and threshold_pct (with default and meaning). Examples further clarify usage, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 scans Nifty 50 stocks near their 52-week high or low, distinguishing it from broader screeners like stock_screener. It uses specific verb+resource ('Scan Nifty 50 stocks') and explains the scan types.

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 context on when to use each scan type (momentum vs value opportunities) and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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