get_ltp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only communicates a read-style 'Get' action; it does not mention authentication needs, live-vs-delayed data behavior, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 and an output schema exists, but with no annotations the description lacks guidance on how to obtain valid symboltoken/tradingsymbol pairs and does not distinguish itself from market-data siblings. It is minimally adequate but has practical gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain how exchange, symboltoken, and tradingsymbol identify the instrument. It only refers to 'a single instrument,' leaving parameter semantics almost entirely to the raw schema and field names.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the last traded price (LTP)') and clearly limits scope to 'a single instrument,' so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_market_quote or get_candle_data.

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 phrase 'for a single instrument' implies this tool is for isolated LTP lookups rather than broader market data queries, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended usage is inferable, not explicit.

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