promoter_shareholding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the type of data returned and notes the tool is free, but does not mention error handling, data freshness, or explicitly state read-only behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a data retrieval tool.

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 summary, bulleted list, args section, and examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the marketing line about paid features, but remains organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, existing output schema), the description adequately covers the expected output categories and usage via examples. Minor gaps include data sources and error behavior, but these are not critical for this straightforward 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 description explicitly documents the symbol parameter with format and examples (e.g., RELIANCE, TCS, INFY, HDFCBANK), fully compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. This goes beyond the bare schema definition, making the parameter unambiguous.

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 provides a shareholding pattern breakdown for NSE stocks, listing specific categories (promoter, FII, DII, public). This distinguishes it from siblings like promoter_pledge and nse_fii_dii_data by covering all holder types, not just one.

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 usage through examples and the context 'Who owns Reliance and how much', but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to prefer this tool. The line about covering paid features hints at value but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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