moneycontrol_get_index

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

The description discloses the return shape in JSON mode and error behavior ('Returns "Error: ..." on failure'). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds context about index resolution and output details, adding value 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 paragraphs for purpose, fast-path names, args, and returns. It is somewhat verbose but clear and front-loaded. Some repetition of schema details could be trimmed.

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?

The tool is simple (get index level) and the description covers usage, output shape, and error handling. Annotations provide safety guarantees. The description is mostly complete, though it could note that the output may vary for unrecognized indices.

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 contains descriptions for both parameters (index and response_format). The description restates these with similar wording, adding little new meaning. Given schema coverage is effectively high, a 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 retrieves current level and movement for a market index, listing built-in fast-path names. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like moneycontrol_get_quote or moneycontrol_get_fundamentals.

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 on when to use the tool by listing built-in index names and mentioning automatic resolution via Moneycontrol search. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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