nifty_pcr_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool calculates PCR data itself ('We calculate it free') and lists the specific outputs (OI-based/volume-based PCR, overall sentiment signal, bull/bear/neutral interpretation, total OI). It does not discuss data freshness, error handling, or limitations, but for a read-only data tool this is reasonable context.

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 lead purpose statement, a brief value-add note about cost, a bullet list of outputs, and an Args/examples section. The Sensibull Pro pricing line is extraneous but not disruptive. The content is front-loaded and every section serves a purpose, though it could be slightly trimmed.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description need not detail return structures. It covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and usage examples adequately. For its complexity level, it is fully complete.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates fully with an 'Args' section stating 'num_expiries: Number of expiries to analyze (default 5)' and two usage examples that illustrate the parameter's effect.

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 'Nifty PCR (Put-Call Ratio) trend across multiple expiries — market sentiment gauge.' It specifies the resource (Nifty PCR), the scope (multiple expiries), and distinguishes it from siblings like options_oi_analytics and nse_options_chain by focusing specifically on PCR and sentiment interpretation. The 'Provides:' list further clarifies the exact outputs.

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 labels the tool as a 'market sentiment gauge' and provides examples of usage (nifty_pcr_trend() and nifty_pcr_trend(3)), which clearly implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it stops 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.