SEBI orders (adjudication, settlement, prohibitory, recovery, WTM, etc.) filtered by date and category. Returns title + date + URL to the official order PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| category | No | adjudication / settlement / prohibitory / wtm / recovery / informal_guidance / consent. Case-insensitive (fix in 0.1.1). | |
| date_from | No | ISO YYYY-MM-DD. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct regulatory domain: AMFI for mutual funds, GST for tax verification, RBI for central bank circulars/press releases, and SEBI for securities circulars/orders. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of organization_entity (e.g., rbi_circulars, sebi_orders), using snake_case throughout. Predictable and clear.
With 6 tools covering major Indian financial regulators, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool addresses a distinct need without redundancy.
The set covers key regulatory bodies (AMFI, GST, RBI, SEBI) but misses others like income tax, MCA, IRDAI, or PFRDA. Within the covered agencies, core document types are present, but some secondary resources are absent.