Market Pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying the tool returns a consolidated snapshot of multiple data categories (flows, valuations, volatility) in one call, and frames it as a 'quick' overview. It doesn't detail return format or units beyond 'crores', but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adds sufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and contents, the second routes to alternatives. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data it will get and when to use it. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response shape or units for valuations/VIX, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, the description covers the essential context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description earns it by clearly enumerating the output categories.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('today's market snapshot') and enumerates the exact contents: FII/DII net flows, Nifty 50 valuations, and India VIX. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_market_data and get_trending_stocks as alternatives for different use cases. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says this is the 'quick daily-overview tool' and provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: use get_market_data with dataset: 'signals' for technical signals, and get_trending_stocks for gainers/losers/most-active. This is direct routing guidance that tells the agent exactly when to pick this tool over siblings.

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