FII/DII Institutional Flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it details the scope of data (30-day cash flows, F&O positioning, aggregates, streaks) and the optional chart interval behavior. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded opening line and a concise bullet list of data offerings. Every bullet adds information, though the final promotional sentence ('Essential for understanding...') is arguably unnecessary. Overall, it earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so by listing key data categories (cash flows, F&O positioning, aggregates, streaks). It does not specify exact return structure or units for all fields, but for a read-only data tool with a single optional parameter, this is reasonably complete.

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 100% for the single optional chart_interval parameter, and the schema already explains it clearly. The description's mention of 'cumulative flow chart data with interval param' slightly reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, justifying a baseline 3.

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+resource ('Get detailed FII/DII institutional flow data') and enumerates the exact data categories returned. This is clear and specific, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_fii_dii_flows', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses the differentiation that would merit a 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 implies usage context with 'Essential for understanding institutional money flow in Indian markets,' which tells an agent when it is valuable. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fii_dii_flows, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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