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 effectively describes the return structure (OHLCV + summary stats) and reveals the temporal limitation for minute-level data. It could improve by mentioning data delays, authentication requirements, or error behaviors.

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 follows an optimal structure: purpose statement → return value summary → Args documentation → Examples. Every section earns its place; the examples demonstrate valid parameter combinations without redundancy, and the 1m constraint note is placed precisely where relevant.

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 presence of an output schema (reducing the need for detailed return documentation) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers domain-specific constraints (NSE symbols, interval limitations), provides exemplar inputs, and clarifies the temporal scope of data availability.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: symbol includes format examples (RELIANCE, TCS), period lists all valid options (1d, 5d, 1mo, etc.), and interval enumerates choices with the critical 1m constraint. This exceeds baseline expectations for undocumented schemas.

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 opening sentence 'Get historical price data (OHLCV) for an NSE stock' provides a specific verb (Get), resource (historical price data/OHLCV), and scope (NSE stock). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crypto_historical or stock_historical by specifying 'NSE' and the OHLCV format.

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 clear usage context through concrete examples and notes the critical constraint that '1m data only available for last 7 days.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus stock_historical or bse_quote, relying instead on implicit differentiation via the 'NSE' specification.

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