Alias for list_funds to discover UPF/PPF/VPF fund IDs for FSC-based analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | No | ||
| 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool is an alias and describes the purpose, without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, any side effects, or the exact return format.
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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the alias relationship and the purpose, making it maximally concise for the information it conveys.
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?
While the tool is a simple alias, the description is too thin to be complete: it does not explain the parameters, the read-only nature, or how it differs from `list_funds`. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should at least reference the full documentation for `list_funds`.
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 two parameters (`active_only` and `scheme_code`) with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain these parameters, though the mention of fund types gives a slight hint about `scheme_code`. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 identifies the tool as an alias for `list_funds` and states its purpose: discovering UPF/PPF/VPF fund IDs for FSC-based analysis. This provides a specific verb and resource, though the mention of VPF may conflict with the schema's `dpf` option, slightly reducing 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 gives a clear context: use this tool to discover fund IDs for FSC-based analysis. It mentions it is an alias for `list_funds`, which implies equivalence, but does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other.
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.
