market_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is real-time, exchange-licensed, requires configuration, and lists the exact output fields (top 5 bids/asks, total queue sizes). It also notes the credential stays local. While it doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond a generic read operation.

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 a bolded header, clear bullet points for outputs, and an example. It includes useful cost/licensing context that is not redundant. Slightly verbose, but every sentence adds value.

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 tool with an output schema present (though not shown here), the description covers purpose, parameter format, configuration requirement, and output fields. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks error-handling or fallback guidance if configuration 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?

The schema only defines 'symbol' with no description, so the description compensates by specifying it as an NSE symbol and providing concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, HDFCBANK). This adds meaningful guidance for a single parameter, though it could clarify whether exchange suffixes are accepted.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Level 2 order book depth — top 5 bid/ask prices and quantities.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote or nse_quote, which provide price snapshots rather than order book depth.

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?

It mentions prerequisites ('Requires Angel One API credentials') and that it provides live data 'when configured', giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for a simple quote use stock_quote'), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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