nifty_index

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 transparency. The description implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the return fields, but it does not disclose data freshness, error handling, or any side effects. It is a functional description without additional behavioral caveats.

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: a one-line summary, a list of return values, a clear Args section with bullet points, and examples. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant text.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameter to pass, and what is returned. Minor gaps include not mentioning the default index_name (NIFTY50) and lack of error-handling details, but these are not critical for a simple getter. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has only a parameter description coverage of 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it lists every valid index_name option with explanations, synonyms (e.g., NIFTY for NIFTY50), and even provides three examples showing expected usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get current value of Indian market indices.' It specifies the resource (Indian market indices) and enumerates the exact indices (NIFTY50, SENSEX, BANKNIFTY, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual stocks (e.g., stock_quote, nse_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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving index values, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is unambiguous (e.g., options include ALL for all indices), but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it falls short of a 5.

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