Comprehensive guide for a specific SFC license type: exam papers, capital requirements, fit-and-proper criteria, CPD hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aspect | No | overview | |
| license_type | Yes | License type: 'Type 1' through 'Type 13' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds useful content scope (exam, capital, fit-and-proper, CPD) but does not disclose output format, length, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or vague wording. Every element (license type, content areas) adds value and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key query dimensions and content scope. It does not specify the return format, but given the guide nature and annotations, this is not a critical omission.
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?
Only license_type has a schema description (coverage 50%). The description's list of exam papers, capital, fit-and-proper, and CPD hours directly corresponds to the aspect enum values (exam, capital, fit_and_proper), giving semantic meaning to that parameter beyond the bare enum.
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 comprehensive guide for a specific SFC license type, listing concrete content areas (exam papers, capital requirements, fit-and-proper criteria, CPD hours). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_regulation and checklist_lookup by focusing on license-specific guidance.
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 conveys clear usage context: it is intended for retrieving a comprehensive guide for a specific SFC license type. It does not, however, explicitly exclude or compare with alternative tools like sop_guide, but the context is specific enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: querying regulations, searching enforcement, checking compliance health, assessing risk, getting SOPs, etc. However, checklist_lookup and query_regulation overlap somewhat in general regulatory questions, and compliance_check vs compliance_score could be confused, though descriptions help.
Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (get_license_guide, query_regulation, search_enforcement), while others are noun-led (compliance_check, checklist_lookup, risk_assessment). This mixed convention reduces predictability.
10 tools is well-scoped for an SFC compliance assistant, covering a range of tasks from regulation lookup to risk assessment and enforcement search without being excessive. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the core domain lifecycle: regulatory knowledge, compliance checking, risk assessment, enforcement research, SOP guidance, license info, and updates. Minor gaps like direct form submission or detailed compliance item management exist, but the set is near complete for an advisory/analysis tool.