stock_quote_fno

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is 'live' and covers 'all contracts of a symbol', which is minimal behavioral information. However, it omits any details about response format, rate limits, permissions, or whether it returns only current data or any other operational characteristics.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key information ('Live F&O quotes') and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and only one simple parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the quote data includes (e.g., LTP, bid, ask, OI) or differentiate clearly from sibling tools like 'live_fno'. An agent would not know what to expect in the response or when to prefer this over a close alternative.

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 only a title and no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by stating 'of a symbol', implying the parameter is the underlying symbol for F&O contracts. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., NSE symbol format) or any constraints beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing live F&O quotes for all contracts of a symbol, which conveys the resource and scope. It distinguishes from 'stock_quote' (likely spot quotes) and 'live_fno' (possibly broader or different scope). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the noun phrase 'quotes', so it is not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'live_fno' or 'stock_quote'. There are no contextual hints, exclusions, or alternative mentions. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context.

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