nse_quarterly_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Shows' and discloses the output metrics, which is useful. However, it does not mention data source, delay, invalid symbol handling, or any side effects, though for a simple data fetch this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief output description, an args section, and examples. Every sentence adds value and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description is adequately complete. It states the core metrics returned and gives examples. It does not detail the output schema fields, but the existing output schema handles that, and the description is sufficient for a straightforward getter.

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 provides the parameter name and type, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'symbol: NSE stock symbol' and giving concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, INFY, HDFCBANK), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. No additional validation details are provided, but the examples suffice for a single string parameter.

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 gets 'latest quarterly financial results for an NSE stock' and lists specific metrics (revenue, profit, EPS, EBITDA), giving a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like income_statement or earnings_calendar, but the focus on quarterly results with growth rates makes the purpose distinct.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this for quarterly fundamentals' or 'use nse_quote for current price', leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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