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 effectively discloses behavioral scope by specifying the stock universe (Nifty 500) and timing context ('currently', 'today', 'intraday'). It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or data latency, but covers the essential operational context.

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 well-structured with the purpose statement front-loaded, followed by implementation details, Args documentation, and Examples. Every section earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description is complete. It covers the domain specifics (Nifty 500), parameter options, and usage examples without needing to describe return values.

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 compensates by documenting the circuit_type parameter in the Args section—listing valid values ('upper', 'lower', 'both'), their meanings ('locked at high/low'), and the default value ('both').

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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and clearly identifies the resource (NSE stocks hitting circuit limits). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nse_top_movers or nse_52week_scanner by specifically mentioning 'circuit limits' and 'frozen at intraday high/low'.

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?

Provides clear context about when to use the tool (checking for price freeze conditions) and includes concrete examples showing different parameter values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it.

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