finstack-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists returned data fields (strike price, premium, PCR, etc.) which helps, but fails to explain the '[PRO]' access tier, whether data is real-time or delayed, or how multiple expiries are handled.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (summary, return values, Args, Examples). Front-loaded with key information. Examples section is slightly verbose with three full syntax demonstrations when one comprehensive example would suffice.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with an output schema (confirmed by context signals). Lists return fields which is helpful redundancy. However, gaps remain regarding the unexplained '[PRO]' designation and whether the tool returns all expiry dates or requires selection.

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?

Effectively compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining the symbol parameter as 'NSE stock or index symbol' with concrete examples (RELIANCE, BANKNIFTY). Deduct one point for missing format constraints (e.g., uppercase requirements, length limits, or ISIN acceptance).

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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'options chain' + scope 'NSE stock or index'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like nse_quote or stock_historical by specifying options derivatives data rather than spot prices or fundamentals.

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 examples of valid symbols (RELIANCE, NIFTY) which implies usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like nse_quote or stock_quote. No mention of prerequisites such as market hours or symbol validity requirements.

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