Indian Regulatory Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Daily NAV' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as date format expectations, error handling, rate limits, or whether the response includes additional metadata. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise given the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should be more complete. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., return format, fields), error scenarios, or any constraints like date range limitations. A user would need additional documentation to understand the tool fully.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that 'scheme_code' identifies a mutual fund scheme and 'date' is likely optional (implied by 'Daily NAV'). However, it does not specify expected formats for either parameter, and 'Daily NAV' suggests date might be optional but does not confirm default behavior. The description provides basic semantic help but lacks precision.

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 it retrieves daily NAV for an Indian mutual fund scheme by AMFI scheme code. It specifies the resource and action, making the purpose clear. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, those tools are in unrelated domains (GST, RBI, SEBI), so confusion is unlikely.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when to consider alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this tool over others. The description only states what the tool does, not how to use it appropriately.

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

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

No annotations present, but the description fully discloses the tool's limitation (structure-only) and does not overpromise, with no contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the primary function and immediate clarification of scope.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what it doesn't do, and how to complement it.

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 one parameter 'gstin' with 0% schema coverage. The description explains its purpose (validate GSTIN structure) but does not specify format details (e.g., length, pattern) beyond the structural breakdown.

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 validates a GSTIN structurally, listing the components (state code, PAN, entity-sequence, check digit), distinguishing it from active status checks.

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?

Explicitly notes that this checks structure only, not active status, and directs users to an authorized GST API for active-status checks, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It only mentions filtering by topic and date, but omits critical details like pagination, sorting, response format, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or examples, which could improve clarity for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 4 parameters, and no param descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are ordered, or how to handle errors.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'by topic and date', which vaguely maps to the topic, date_from, and date_to parameters. It does not explain parameter formats, default behavior, or constraints (e.g., date format, topic values).

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 'RBI notifications/circulars by topic and date' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving RBI circulars filtered by topic and date. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rbi_press_release and sebi_circulars.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sebi_circulars for SEBI circulars). The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens on error. It only states purpose, not side effects or limitations.

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 short phrase, which is concise but at the expense of information. It is not structured with front-loaded critical details; it does not provide enough context to be useful.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with no descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not specify return format, pagination, or how parameters interact. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters (date_to, date_from, limit). The word 'by date' hints at date usage but does not clarify formats or defaults. The schema itself lacks descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate.

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 'RBI press releases by date' identifies the resource (RBI press releases) and a filter criterion (date), but lacks an action verb (e.g., fetch, list). It distinguishes from sibling 'rbi_circulars' by resource type, but is minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings like rbi_circulars. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence. However, it sacrifices essential context. While brevity is valued, the tool would benefit from a slightly longer description to improve clarity.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, sorting, or input validation. Sibling tools are not differentiated, leaving the agent guessing about appropriate usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning: it mentions 'topic substring' but does not clarify date format, default behavior of limit, or that date_from/date_to are strings. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves SEBI circulars, with filtering by topic substring and date. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'rbi_circulars' and 'sebi_orders', though it could be more specific about the output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not compared; the description lacks context on when this tool is preferred over 'rbi_circulars' or 'sebi_orders'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions return fields. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or data limits. The description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads purpose and output. No wasted words.

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?

With no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify default behavior (e.g., what is returned without filters) and pagination. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with category and date_from having descriptions. The tool description adds only 'date and category' filtering context. Parameters limit and date_to lack descriptions, and the description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 resource ('SEBI orders'), the action ('filtered by date and category'), and the output ('title + date + URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sebi_circulars by specifying orders.

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 for SEBI orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sebi_circulars or rbi tools. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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