icici_live_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the dependency on ICICI Breeze, the 'zero delay when configured' conditionality, the need for a daily session token, and lists the output fields. However, it omits behavior on errors, rate limits, or the explicit read-only nature, leaving some important operational traits undisclosed.

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 clear sections for Returns, Setup, and Args. It front-loads the core purpose and all sentences contribute useful context, especially the setup commands. Though slightly longer than necessary, the setup instructions are relevant for understanding the tool's operational requirements.

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?

For a one-parameter real-time quote tool, the description is largely complete: purpose, return fields, parameter format, and setup prerequisites are covered. The existing output schema would handle detailed return structure, and the description's field listing is a bonus. Missing explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling quote tools is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does this well by defining 'symbol' as 'NSE symbol' and providing concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, HDFCBANK). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Symbol' title, though it doesn't address formatting edge cases like case sensitivity or exchange prefixes.

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 the tool delivers a 'Real-time NSE quote via ICICI Breeze API' and lists the exact fields returned (LTP, O/H/L, previous close, volume, change%). This goes beyond a vague verb+resource, providing a specific data scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling quote tools such as nse_quote or stock_quote.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like fyers_live_quote or live_quote. The description includes setup instructions but no comparison, exclusion criteria, or explicit use-case framing. The only implied usage is 'if you have ICICI Breeze credentials,' which is not enough to guide tool selection.

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