moneycontrol_get_quote

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the error handling behavior ('Returns Error: ...') and the return shape, but this is minimal additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 with sections for Args and Returns, using bullet points. It front-loads the purpose sentence. While it is somewhat lengthy, it earns its space by providing essential details without redundancy.

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's simplicity and the presence of a detailed output schema in the description, all necessary information is covered: purpose, parameters, error handling, and return format. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0% per context, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: symbol (sc_id or name), exchange (nse/bse), response_format (markdown/json). It adds nuances like 'preferred' for sc_id, which is helpful beyond the schema's basic types.

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 explicitly states 'Get a live equity quote' and lists the data points (price, change, OHLC, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like moneycontrol_get_fundamentals and moneycontrol_get_history, which serve different purposes.

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 clear instructions on how to use the parameters (symbol as sc_id or name, exchange defaults to nse, response_format options). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context of siblings makes it somewhat implicit.

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