nse_fii_dii_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a read-only getter and adds useful interpretive context about FII/DII net buys being bullish/bearish signals. However, it does not mention data source, potential lag, whether DII values are provisional, or other operational 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 brief, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes value: what it gets, what it shows, how to interpret it, and how to call it. The example and no-arguments note are useful, and there is no fluff.

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 zero-argument tool, the description thoroughly covers purpose, scope (today), interpretation, and usage example. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description, making it complete for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'No arguments needed' and providing a concrete example call (nse_fii_dii_data()), which adds clarity beyond the already-empty 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get FII (Foreign Institutional Investor) and DII (Domestic Institutional Investor) activity data.' It further defines what the tool does by stating it shows how much institutions bought/sold today, which clearly distinguishes it from broad market-data tools like nifty_index 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?

The description implies when to use the tool through phrases like 'today's FII/DII activity' and interpretive signals ('FII net buy = bullish signal'), but it never explicitly names alternatives or provides when-not-to-use guidance. While the context is clear, it lacks the exclusions and alternative comparisons needed for a higher score.

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