index_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'live metrics' which implies real-time data, but it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior, handling of the limit parameter, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The single behavioral hint is minimal and insufficient.

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 extremely brief, which could be seen as concise, but it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence. It lacks the structure of a well-formed instruction and omits critical details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 2 parameters, an enum, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use the index parameter, what limit controls, or any edge cases. Even though the output schema exists, the description still needs to provide usage context and parameter semantics, which it fails to do.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention the 'index' parameter or its enum values, nor does it explain the 'limit' parameter or its default. The description provides no added meaning beyond the raw parameter names in 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?

The description identifies a specific resource (constituents of NSE indices) and a distinguishing feature (live metrics). The implied action is retrieval, and it is not a tautology of the tool name. It differentiates from siblings like sector_stocks (which focuses on sectors) and stock_detail (which focuses on a single stock), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of comparison with stock_screen, sector_stocks, or mf_* tools. The description is purely definitional and provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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