sensex_components

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the returned data (current price, % change, market cap, top 5 gainers/losers) and the argument behavior, but does not mention error handling or real-time limitations. This is adequate for a simple read-only data 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: a clear one-line purpose, a brief summary of returns, an args section, and useful examples. Every sentence adds value and the format is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (one parameter), and the description explains its behavior and inputs completely. An output schema exists, so detailed return formatting is not required. The description even includes edge cases (nifty50 vs sensex) and highlights the top gainers/losers feature, making it complete for the described scope.

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 property lacks a description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explicitly stating the valid values ('nifty50' or 'sensex'), the default, and even provides examples. This gives meaning beyond the raw schema and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of stocks in Nifty 50 or Sensex'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on index constituents with live prices, not individual quotes or index levels.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (getting all index components with prices and top movers), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for basic selection among the many sibling tools.

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