FII/DII Flows (alias for get_fii_dii_detail)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond listing the types of data returned; it does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. With annotations present, the added value is modest but not contradictory.

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 brief and efficient, with the alias declaration front-loaded and data types summarized concisely. However, it repeats the alias information already present in the title, creating minor redundancy. It is appropriately sized with no filler, so it earns a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what data is returned. It lists several specific data categories (daily cash market flows, F&O positioning, weekly/monthly/yearly aggregates, buy/sell streaks), giving a solid picture of the content. The optional chart_interval parameter is documented in the schema, and the tool is simple enough that the description largely suffices, though it could mention how the parameter affects output.

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 single parameter chart_interval is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description ('Include cumulative flow chart data for this interval'). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no additional semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: retrieving detailed FII/DII institutional flow data, listing specific data types (daily cash market flows, F&O positioning, aggregates, buy/sell streaks). It distinguishes from general market data tools by focusing on FII/DII flows, but it is explicitly an alias for get_fii_dii_detail, which is a sibling, so it doesn't differentiate from that particular sibling.

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 only states it is an alias for get_fii_dii_detail, providing no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or context for when FII/DII data is needed. The alias statement implies interchangeability but does not explicitly advise when to choose this over other market data tools.

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