nse_corporate_actions

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates the tool retrieves data (read-only) but does not disclose potential limits on history depth, rate limits, or any side effects. Basic transparency is met but not detailed.

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?

Description is concise, with two short paragraphs: one for purpose and one for parameter details. It is front-loaded with key information, no redundant phrases.

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 low complexity (1 param) and presence of an output schema, description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and examples. It is complete for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Input schema has one required string parameter 'symbol' with 0% coverage. Description adds concrete examples (e.g., ITC, RELIANCE) and explains it is an NSE stock symbol, greatly enhancing understanding 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies resource 'corporate actions for an NSE stock', listing examples like dividends, stock splits, bonuses. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like dividend_history by covering broader corporate actions.

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 examples and mentions scope (recent and historical with dates and values), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dividend_history or nse_quarterly_results. It lacks guidance on 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.