rbi_supervisory_tapeRead the latest RBI enforcement and supervisory actions — monetary penalties, licence cancellations and supervisory directions — parsed from rbi.org.in press releases, newest first, each item carrying the RBI's own source URL. Takes no arguments. When no tape snapshot exists on the deployment, says so in a stated note instead of returning silent emptiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds key behavioral details: results are newest first, each item includes the RBI's source URL, and it gracefully handles missing data by returning a note instead of silence.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, content, ordering, and error handling. Every part earns its place without 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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains what items contain (specific enforcement types and source URL) and handles the empty state. This is complete for a simple read-only tool with zero parameters.
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?
With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description confirms the tool takes no arguments, which is sufficient. No additional parameter details are needed.
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 reads the latest RBI enforcement actions, specifies the types (monetary penalties, licence cancellations, supervisory directions), source (rbi.org.in press releases), and ordering (newest first). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_institution or evidence_india by focusing on RBI supervisory actions.
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 implicitly indicates this tool is for fetching RBI enforcement data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like evidence_india or evidence_markets. It clearly notes it takes no arguments.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource, sector, or function: sector-specific boards (corporate, household, crypto, stablecoin, failure radar), evidence details by region, verification, search, and review packet generation. Descriptions explicitly delineate boundaries, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select.
There are recognizable families (e.g., *_board for dashboards, evidence_* for validation records), but the set mixes conventions: noun-phrase boards, verb-first tools like universe_search and verify_published_record, and standalone nouns like forward_odds. This is readable but not uniform.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool has a distinct purpose and no redundancy. The count feels justified given the breadth of domains (India, US, Europe, crypto, stablecoins) and functions (monitoring, validation, verification, review).
The set covers the full workflow: universe_search for discovery, sector boards for monitoring, failure_radar_institution for deep dives, evidence_* for validation, forward_odds for probability context, verify_published_record for integrity, and institution_review_packet for human review. No obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated failure-radar domain.