Indian Regulatory Data

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

With no annotations, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Daily NAV' but does not explain behavior such as what the tool returns (e.g., single NAV, historical range), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Significant gaps remain.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks completeness.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should elaborate on return values and parameter behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., NAV value, date, currency) or how to interpret results. This makes it insufficient for full automatic use.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only mentions 'scheme code' generically but does not explain the format or meaning of the 'scheme_code' parameter, nor does it describe the 'date' parameter at all. This leaves the agent without essential usage details.

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 daily NAV for an Indian mutual fund scheme by AMFI scheme code. It is distinct from sibling tools (GST, RBI, SEBI) which cover other financial data. However, it does not clarify whether omitting the 'date' parameter returns the latest NAV or requires a date, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or not, nor any comparison with sibling tools. Users must infer context from the tool name and siblings 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 the full burden. It clearly states the tool's behavior (structural validation only) and its limitation (no active-status check). It does not mention return format or error handling, but for a simple validation tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences: the first concisely states the main action, and the second adds an important caveat. Every word earns its place, no 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, and a key limitation. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., boolean), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the 'gstin' parameter by detailing its composition (state code + PAN + entity-sequence + Mod-36 check digit), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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). It distinguishes from active-status checks, and the sibling tools are unrelated, so no further differentiation is needed.

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 explicitly notes that this tool only checks structure, not active status, and that an authorized GST API call is required for active-status verification. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not list specific alternatives.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and filtering dimensions. Missing details include authentication requirements, rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or what happens with empty results. The agent lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 that communicates the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage constraints, or differentiate from similar tools. The agent would need significant additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by mentioning 'topic and date' as filters, confirming the purpose of those parameters. However, it does not explain the format for date strings, valid topic values (no enums), or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. The compensation is insufficient.

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 that the tool retrieves RBI notifications/circulars, and it specifies filtering by topic and date. This gives a clear verb-resource relationship. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'rbi_press_release' or 'sebi_circulars', though the name and context imply the domain.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no instructions on prerequisites, limitations, or when to consider alternatives. The description is too brief to advise on appropriate usage contexts.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only mentions date-based filtering. It fails to disclose traits such as sorting order, pagination, error handling, or rate limits.

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 short (one sentence), but it lacks substance and fails to provide useful information. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details like return format, date format, and the effect of the 'limit' parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies date parameters but does not explain their format, meaning, or the purpose of the 'limit' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 (RBI press releases) and the filtering scope (by date), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'rbi_circulars', which could cause confusion.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rbi_circulars'. There is no context for typical use cases or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or result format. The mention of 'substring' and 'date' is vague.

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 single sentence is concise but under-specified, omitting essential details. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, return structure, and behavioral context.

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 gives no meaning for parameters like limit, topic, date_to, date_from. It only hints at topic and date filtering without specifics.

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 filtered by topic substring and date, distinguishing it from siblings like sebi_orders or rbi_circulars. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rbi_circulars. The name implies SEBI-specific, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output format (title + date + URL) and mentions filtering, implying a read-only query. However, it does not confirm idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 concise, a single sentence with clear elements. It is front-loaded with the tool's subject. Minor improvement could be structuring the output note separately.

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 description covers the core function and return type. However, it omits pagination behavior (limit), ordering, error handling, or empty result scenarios, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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%; the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The name 'category' is listed but not further clarified, and 'limit' and 'date_to' lack any semantic help.

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 deals with SEBI orders and returns title, date, and URL. It mentions filtering by date and category, indicating a listing/search function. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'search') and does not directly differentiate from the sibling '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?

The description notes filtering by date and category but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sebi_circulars' or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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