moneycontrol_get_technicals

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: returns OHLC and pivot tables, supports two output formats ('markdown' or 'json'), and returns error messages ('Error: ...'). It does not contradict annotations. It discloses important behavior beyond what annotations provide, but could include more about potential rate limits or auth.

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, uses bullet points for parameters, and clearly separates Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signal indicates true) and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the return type (str), describes the content (OHLC and pivot tables), and explains error handling. No critical information is missing.

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?

Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all parameters: symbol (sc_id or company name), exchange (nse default or bse), period (D, W, M), and response_format (markdown or json). It adds value by clarifying that sc_id is preferred and noting defaults. This fully compensates for the lack of schema coverage.

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 'Get pivot points and support/resistance levels for a stock.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pivot points and support/resistance levels'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like moneycontrol_get_fundamentals (which retrieves financial data) and moneycontrol_get_quote (which gets current price).

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 explicit guidance on the input parameters (symbol, exchange, period, response_format) and return format. It implies when to use this tool (for technical analysis data) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. However, it covers the context well.

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