Alias for list_managers with explicit Bulgarian pension context for agent discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only states it is an alias, providing no detail on side effects, permissions, data scope, or behavior. Since the alias target's behavior isn't described here, the agent gets minimal transparency.
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 directly states the tool's nature as an alias. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place.
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?
As a simple alias with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but reasonably complete for an alias note. However, it assumes knowledge of `list_managers` and does not explain the parameter or any behavior beyond the alias relationship, leaving gaps.
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 description does not mention the `scheme_code` parameter, and the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage). The enum values (upf, ppf, dpf) and default null offer some semantic clues, but the description adds no meaning, leaving the parameter's purpose ambiguous.
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 identifies the tool as an alias for `list_managers` with a Bulgarian pension context, making the resource and scope clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly targeting Bulgarian pension fund managers, though it lacks a direct verb like 'lists'.
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 phrase 'with explicit Bulgarian pension context for agent discovery' implies use for Bulgarian pension scenarios, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over the generic `list_managers` or other alternatives. No clear exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
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.
Many tools have identical aliases (e.g., list_funds and get_bulgarian_pension_funds, list_benchmarks and get_bulgarian_pension_benchmarks), creating ambiguity. An agent would struggle to choose between them. Additionally, cache_stats is unrelated to the core domain, adding confusion.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use short verb_noun (list_funds, compute_metric), while aliases are long and verbose (get_bulgarian_pension_fund_managers). Mixing both styles without clear distinction harms predictability.
26 tools is on the high side, but many are aliases; the unique tool count is around 16-17, which is reasonable for a comprehensive analytics server. However, the alias redundancy makes the list feel bloated.
The tool set covers discovery (list_funds, list_managers, list_benchmarks), data retrieval (get_nav_series, get_holdings_reports_index), computation (compute_metric, rank), simulation (simulate_saver_outcome), and legal documents (search_pension_law). Missing are tools for updating or creating data, which is acceptable for an analytics server. A minor gap is the lack of a direct fund detail tool besides NAV.
