Market Valuations

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 useful behavioral context: default weekly data frequency, default 5-year period, and the flexible index_code format. No contradiction with annotations, but it doesn't describe response format or pagination, which are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and defaults, and the second paragraph efficiently explains the parameter format without repetition. No wasted words, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, defaults, and parameter format. It lacks explicit mention of the response structure (e.g., time-series format), but given the tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is not a critical omission. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping each slug to its numeric code (e.g., nifty-50 (13)) and clarifying that index_code accepts either form. This goes beyond the schema's description, which lists only slugs, so the description meaningfully enhances parameter understanding.

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 retrieves index valuation metrics (PE, PB, Dividend Yield) over time, with specific defaults. It is specific about the resource and purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_index_history or market_heatmap, so it falls short of 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 includes a use case ('assessing whether the market is overvalued or undervalued relative to historical averages') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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