finstack-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It specifies the temporal scope ('today') and data interpretation semantics, but omits operational details like data freshness (real-time vs. EOD), availability during market closures, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would help an agent predict execution behavior.

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 optimally structured with the imperative purpose first ('Get FII...'), followed by behavioral details, interpretation semantics, constraints, and a clear usage example. Every sentence provides distinct value with no repetition or filler content.

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 low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It successfully explains domain-specific concepts (FII/DII) and interpretation logic. A minor gap is the lack of temporal constraints (e.g., 'data available after market close'), but this is not critical given the output schema handles return value documentation.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, this warrants a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately confirms 'No arguments needed,' aligning with the empty schema without adding redundant parameter details.

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 'Get[s] FII and DII activity data' with specific investor types defined. It explains what the data represents (bought/sold amounts). While it effectively defines the domain, it stops short of explicitly differentiating from similar sibling tools like 'nse_bulk_deals' that also track institutional activity.

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 valuable interpretation context ('FII net buy = bullish signal'), indicating when this data is useful for sentiment analysis. It also correctly states 'No arguments needed.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this versus alternatives, or prerequisites like market hours/data availability.

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