Alias for get_nav_series with explicit pension NAV semantics for tool-RAG routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | ||
| fund_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| frequency | No | daily | |
| scheme_code | No | ||
| manager_slug | 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about side effects, permissions, return behavior, or safety (read-only vs. mutating). The description is purely a routing alias note and provides zero behavioral 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 one sentence, so it is short, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly unhelpful. It provides a routing hint but not a proper tool explanation. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.
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 6 parameters, an output schema, and a clear domain (pension fund NAV series), the description is extremely incomplete. It only says it's an alias for routing, missing what the function does, how to use it, what the output represents, or any parameter context. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the lack of 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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. None of the parameters (date_to, fund_id, date_from, frequency, scheme_code, manager_slug) are explained. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing 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 name indicates 'get Bulgarian pension fund NAV series', and the description says it's an alias for get_nav_series with pension semantics. This conveys it retrieves NAV data, but the description itself doesn't explicitly state the verb or resource; it's meta about routing. It distinguishes minimally from get_nav_series via 'pension NAV semantics' but lacks concrete detail.
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. It only states it's an alias for get_nav_series with routing semantics, not when a user/agent should prefer it over get_nav_series or other sibling tools. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions.
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.
