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 adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the temporal scope ('today') and output formatting ('best and worst performers highlighted'), but omits data freshness, rate limits, or read-only safety guarantees.

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 front-loaded with the core action, follows with specific scope details, confirms the zero-parameter nature, and ends with a concrete usage example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists (per context signals), and the operation is a simple data retrieval, the description is complete. It covers the resource, scope, input requirements, and usage pattern sufficiently.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description explicitly states 'No arguments needed,' confirming the schema structure. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4.

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 ('Get') and resource ('performance of Nifty sectoral indices'), then enumerates exact sectors covered (Banking, IT, Pharma, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'nifty_index' or 'stock_quote' which handle different granularity levels.

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 embedded example 'Which sectors are up/down today?' implies the primary use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to select this over 'nifty_index' for broad market data or 'stock_quote' for individual equities, nor any exclusion criteria.

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