moneycontrol_fii_dii

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of positive and negative values, the structure of the return data, segments, and error handling. No contradictions.

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, starting with a clear purpose, then elaborating on segments, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 comprehensive input schema and the detailed description of the return format (including JSON structure with fields and explanations), the tool is fully documented. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, segments, units, and error handling.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (days, segment, response_format), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description repeats these (e.g., 'days (int): Recent trading days to return (1-60, default 10)') with minor additions like 'The cash market is the headline figure.' The added value is minimal beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Get FII (foreign) and DII (domestic) institutional net activity, in INR crore.' This is a specific verb-resource combination. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, the focus on institutional activity and the mention of cash and F&O segments make its purpose unique among the listed siblings.

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 context (e.g., 'The cash market is the headline figure most analysts watch') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions for choosing this tool.

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