Alias for rank_benchmarks for semantically rich benchmark ranking discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | desc | |
| metric | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| period | Yes | ||
| window | No | ||
| frequency | No | daily | |
| scheme_code | No | upf | |
| benchmark_slug | No | ||
| risk_free_rate | No | ||
| include_metrics | 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles scoping (e.g., scheme_code, benchmark_slug), or any other behavioral characteristics. The description provides zero transparency beyond naming an alias.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is one sentence with no substantive content—merely an alias reference plus a vague phrase. It does not earn its place by adding meaningful information.
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 11 parameters, 2 required, no schema coverage, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any context about the parameters, expected behavior, or what distinguishes this ranking tool from similar ones. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter semantics.
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 11 parameters. It does not explain what `metric`, `period`, `window`, `frequency`, `scheme_code`, or other fields represent. With no parameter guidance, the description fails to help an agent use the schema correctly.
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 only says 'Alias for `rank_benchmarks` for semantically rich benchmark ranking discovery.' It does not explicitly state that this tool ranks Bulgarian pension benchmarks by metric; it merely references another tool and vaguely mentions 'ranking discovery.' This is closer to restating the name than providing a clear verb+resource definition.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `rank_benchmarks`, `rank_bulgarian_pension_funds_by_metric`, or `rank`. The phrase 'semantically rich benchmark ranking discovery' gives no concrete context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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.
