nse_historical

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output content (OHLCV + summary stats) and a concrete limitation ('1m data only available for last 7 days'). It does not cover error handling or data adjustment details, but for this tool the disclosed information is adequate.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then provides structured Args and Examples sections. Every section adds value, and the examples are especially useful for parameter combinations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to itemize the return object. It covers the required parameters, valid options, and a data-availability caveat, making it complete for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing each argument, providing valid value sets for period and interval, examples, and a special constraint for the 1m interval.

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-resource pair ('Get historical price data (OHLCV) for an NSE stock'), states the returned fields, and notes summary stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nse_quote (current quote) and crypto_historical (non-NSE).

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 implicitly defines when to use it (historical NSE stock data) through the description and examples, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases relative to siblings like stock_historical.

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