live_index

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or behavioral context, and the description only says 'Live quote' without disclosing data freshness, response format, limitations, or any other behavioral traits. It adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it borders on under-specification.

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 simple one-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits usage context, output expectations, and relation to sibling tools. It is barely adequate for the simplest invocation.

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 schema has one parameter, 'symbol', with a default of 'NIFTY 50' and zero description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter, providing no added meaning beyond the schema's basic property name.

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 states it provides a 'Live quote' for an 'index', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from stock quote tools and historical index tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like stock_quote or index_history. Usage is only implied by the tool name and generic description, offering no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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