moneycontrol_get_history

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds details on error messages ('Error: ...' on failure), ordering (oldest to newest), and output structure, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds context. No redundancy with the schema.

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 tool has no output schema in the provided context, the description compensates by specifying the return format and example. Error handling is mentioned. For a data retrieval tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already describes each parameter (symbol, interval, count, response_format) with details. The description adds narrative examples and clarifies default values, but the schema already covers the essentials, so the description adds moderate value.

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 it retrieves historical OHLCV price bars for NSE stocks, specifying intervals and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on price history versus news, fundamentals, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. However, the tool's name and purpose imply it is for historical price data, which differentiates it from siblings.

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