Alias for rank to semantically target Bulgarian UPF/PPF/VPF leaderboard queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | desc | |
| metric | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| period | Yes | ||
| window | No | ||
| frequency | No | daily | |
| scheme_code | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden, but it only says it is an alias for `rank`. It does not disclose actual ranking behavior, sorting logic, or any side effects. The alias fact is useful but insufficient for a complex tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes: it identifies the alias relation and the semantic targeting. It is appropriately concise for the limited 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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 11 parameters, 3 required, and no schema-level descriptions. The one-line alias note does not explain how to construct valid requests, what metrics or periods are acceptable, or how the alias relates to the full behavior of `rank`.
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 mentions none of the 11 parameters. It does not add any meaning to `metric`, `period`, `scheme_code`, or the other options. This is a major gap for successful invocation.
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 `rank` with a semantic focus on Bulgarian UPF/PPF/VPF leaderboards. This differentiates it from the generic `rank` sibling and the benchmark-specific `rank_bulgarian_pension_benchmarks_by_metric`.
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 'semantically target Bulgarian UPF/PPF/VPF leaderboard queries' gives clear context for when to use this alias (for Bulgarian pension fund rankings). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit reference to `rank`.
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.
