Sukkon Mutual Fund MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the core action (compare side-by-side on all key metrics) but does not explain what 'all key metrics' includes, the output format, handling of invalid codes, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure without meaningful behavioral detail.

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, directly phrased, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent will receive (e.g., a table of metrics, which metrics, or any caveats). It only says 'all key metrics,' which is vague. Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, some context is present, but the lack of return-value description makes it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter scheme_codes, which already describes it as an array of 2–10 AMFI code strings. The description repeats the range ('2–10 funds') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource ('funds') and scope ('2–10 funds side-by-side on all key metrics'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_fund (single fund), get_metrics (single fund metrics), and screen_funds (filtering).

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 implies use when comparing multiple funds, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'for a single fund use get_fund'). It lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions partial name matching or ISIN, which is helpful, but it does not disclose the limit parameter's effect, such as defaulting to 20 results even though it says 'all funds'. It also omits output format, ordering, or potential limitations, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key matching behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention what the returned data looks like (e.g., fund names, identifiers, or how results are ordered) or discuss the limit parameter's role. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces that the identifier is a stock and supports partial matching, but that information is already present in the schema parameter descriptions. The description does not introduce new semantic meaning for the parameters.

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 states the tool's function: finding all funds that hold a specific stock, with matching by name partial match or ISIN. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_holdings (which lists a fund's holdings) and search_funds (which searches funds by name).

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to reverse-lookup funds by a stock—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. For example, it does not clarify that search_funds should be used for finding funds by fund name. The use case is clear from context but no explicit guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns TRI series and lists available indices, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe expected behaviors such as default date ranges, data frequency, or output format, which could be relevant for a data retrieval 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, focused sentence followed by a useful list of supported indices. It is front-loaded with the core function ('Get TRI series') and contains no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about default behavior for optional date parameters and the structure or scope of the returned series. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples of index_name values in the list of available benchmarks, but it does not elaborate on from_date/to_date beyond what the schema already states. Overall, the description complements the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get TRI (Total Return Index) series for a benchmark index.' It specifies the resource (benchmark index) and the type of data (TRI series), and lists available indices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on funds, NPS, or categories.

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 implies usage for retrieving benchmark index TRI series but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternate tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit decision-making guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates across all funds in a category and computes median and average for all metrics, which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about edge cases (e.g., invalid category, missing data, output structure), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and the scope of its operation in an efficient manner.

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's low complexity (one parameter), the description is reasonably complete: it names the input (SEBI category) and the output computation (median and average across all funds/metrics). No output schema exists, so the description reasonably omits return type details.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'category' is described as a SEBI fund category name. The description reinforces that the category is SEBI-based but adds no further syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a precise resource: median and average for all metrics across all funds in a SEBI category. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metrics (single fund) and list_funds_in_category (listing, not stats).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the aggregate/category-level counterpart to fund-level metric tools, nor does it state any exclusions or recommended context. The usage is only implied by the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the data source and the metrics returned, which is helpful, but it does not disclose what happens for non-debt funds, potential data availability issues, or the return format. This is a simple read operation but lacks edge-case behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It lists the metrics efficiently and adds the qualifier about fund types and data source without any fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It names the input, specifies the output metrics, and gives the applicable fund types. There is no output schema, but the metric list serves as a clear description of return values. No missing critical information given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'scheme_code' described as 'AMFI scheme code'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, but since the schema is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get debt quantitative metrics for a fund' and enumerates specific metrics (Macaulay Duration, Modified Duration, average maturity, annualised YTM). It also distinguishes itself from sibling metric tools by specifying the fund types (debt and hybrid funds) and data source (AMFI portfolio disclosures).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for debt and hybrid funds, and it lists the exact metrics returned. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for equity funds). It lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools like get_metrics, but the context is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists specific returned fields but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention data source, or disclose any limitations. 'Get' implicitly suggests read-only, but richer context would improve 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 sentence that is clearly front-loaded with 'Get full details' and includes all necessary information without any filler. No words are wasted.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by listing key return fields. However, the term 'info' is vague, and more detail about the return structure would be beneficial, though not essential given sibling tools for specifics.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (scheme_code) as 'AMFI scheme code', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves full fund details including info, TER, minimum investment, and launch date. This specific verb+resource structure clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_latest_nav, which focus on particular aspects.

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 implies this is the primary tool for a fund overview, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools makes the use case clear, but no exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a read operation returning performance metrics and lists them (trailing returns, Sharpe, Sortino, max drawdown). It does not mention error behavior or data freshness, but for a read-only metrics tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second enumerates the output metrics. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the tool's core function.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only metrics tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the input type and the full expected output metric set. It could mention data as-of date or response format, but the listed metrics set clear expectations.

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 coverage for the sole parameter is 100%, with the scheme_code description and examples already documenting valid GIFT City fund codes. The tool description adds the USD-denominated/GIFT City framing, which reinforces the schema but does not materially add new parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource: USD-denominated performance metrics for a GIFT City IFSC fund. It enumerates the returned metrics, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_metrics or get_sif_metrics.

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 clearly scopes the tool to GIFT City IFSC funds with USD-denominated metrics, giving the agent context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the GIFT City/USD framing is directional enough against siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function and optional date filtering but omits details such as response format, pagination, error behavior, or any limits, which is a significant gap for a data-retrieval 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 two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and optional filtering. There is no redundant information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (simple read operation, 3 params, no nested objects) and the schema covers parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention the return structure or any behavioral caveats, leaving some incompleteness for a historical data tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters (scheme_code, from, to) are documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'USD NAV history' scoped to 'GIFT City IFSC fund'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nav_history, which likely covers non-GIFT funds, and get_latest_nav, which focuses on the most recent value.

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 implies usage for GIFT City IFSC fund NAV history but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_nav_history. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the context implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: output includes percentage of NAV. However, it does not mention the default/max limit (already in schema), whether the list is sorted, what happens for invalid scheme codes, or any pagination or error behavior. It adds some context beyond the schema but is thin.

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 that states the core purpose and a key output detail. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the resource (fund) and the output (top holdings with percentage of NAV). It could be improved by explicitly stating the return list format or noting the limit parameter's effect, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting. The schema's descriptions for scheme_code and limit are clear and sufficient.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('top holdings for a fund'), and adds the specific output detail 'with percentage of NAV'. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_funds_holding (which likely looks up funds by security) and get_fund (which returns fund metadata).

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?

Usage is implied by the description: when you need a fund's top holdings, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as get_fund or find_funds_holding. It lacks the explicit when/when-not comparisons seen in higher-scoring tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (latest NAV and 1-day change percentage) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but it does not mention data freshness limitations or how the change percentage is calculated.

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 of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential output. However, it could note that the 'latest NAV' might be from the previous trading day and describe the response format, which would make it fully complete.

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 sole parameter scheme_code is already documented in the schema with 'AMFI scheme code' (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states it retrieves the latest NAV and the 1-day change percentage, which identifies the tool's function. It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_nav_history, but it does not explicitly name alternatives as in the high-calibration example.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_nav_history or get_fund. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative use cases are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the output metrics and does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects. Since it's a 'get' operation, the risk is low, but the description still lacks explicit context such as whether it returns historical data or current values.

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 that lists the metrics, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get' and the resource.

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 that the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the main purpose but lacks details about return structure, time horizon, or how the metrics are computed. It's adequate for a simple query but not fully complete.

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 only parameter, scheme_code, is fully described in the schema as 'AMFI scheme code' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Get risk-adjusted metrics for a fund' and lists specific metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, max drawdown, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trailing_returns. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tool or explain how it differs from get_fund, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trailing_returns or get_fund. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'get' (read-only) and mentions date filtering, but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, default behavior when no dates are provided, or any potential errors or limitations. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose (get NAV history) and immediately notes the optional date filter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of NAV values with dates) or any ordering. It does not. While the sibling tools provide context, the description alone is not sufficiently complete for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level summary by mentioning 'optionally filtered by date range', which aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves NAV history for a fund, with optional date-range filtering. It implies a specific resource ('fund') and action ('get history'), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_gift_nav_history or get_nps_nav_history, which likely handle specialized fund types.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_latest_nav (for current NAV) or get_gift_nav_history (for gift funds). The 'optionally filtered by date range' gives a hint about usage flexibility but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the data source (a PDF snapshot) but does not explain how top holdings are determined, what happens if the PDF is unavailable, or any freshness/parsing limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that apparently parses external documents.

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 that immediately states the action, target, and data source. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters (one required), no output schema, and clear schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient context about the input and source. It does not explain the output shape or error cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both scheme_code and limit. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely reinforces 'top holdings' and the PDF source. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get top holdings for an NPS scheme') and adds a distinctive data source ('from the latest official NPS Trust scheme snapshot PDF'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_nps_portfolio.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative sibling tools. The only contextual hint is the NPS-specific scope, but there is no explicit usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the type of data returned (trailing returns, risk metrics, etc.) but does not mention any side effects, data freshness, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, which is a mild behavioral cue.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description lists the major return components but leaves ambiguity around 'IMF' (undefined acronym) and does not describe the response structure. It is adequate for a basic retrieval tool but could be more complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation with 'NPS scheme code, e.g. SM001001'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning.

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 states the tool retrieves NPS-specific metrics (trailing returns, risk metrics, benchmark assignment, IMF) for a scheme. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metrics (generic) and get_nps_holdings (different data).

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 implies this tool is used when NPS metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_metrics or get_nps_scheme. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only lightly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or any limitations. It adds little beyond the tool name and schema.

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 that uses zero redundant words. It directly communicates the core purpose and optionality without fluff.

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?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain what the NAV history response contains or any edge cases, leaving the agent with limited context.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions (format, example, optionality). The description only reiterates the optional date-range filtering, adding no meaningful information beyond the schema.

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 states the action (Get), the resource (NPS NAV history), and the scope (for a scheme), with an optional date range filter. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_nav_history by explicitly scoping to NPS schemes.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve NPS-specific NAV history for a scheme, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the NPS qualifier distinguishes it from more general NAV tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses coverage limitations and monthly/full data scope, which is useful. However, it does not describe behavior when coverage is unavailable, the return format, or potential errors, leaving gaps in 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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only essential context about coverage. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and key coverage limitation, which is helpful. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details about return format and failure behavior for non-covered schemes, leaving some contextual 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('parsed full monthly NPS portfolio holdings') and adds scope via 'where available' and 'Current full-parser coverage is SBI Pension Funds.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_nps_holdings' by emphasizing 'parsed full monthly' and coverage.

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 coverage note ('where available' and 'SBI Pension Funds') implies when the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention what to use for unsupported schemes. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 uses the verb 'Get' implying a read operation, but provides no context on pagination, response format, errors, or rate limits. The schema's limit parameter is not mentioned.

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 front-loads the purpose and enumerates the main types. It is efficient, but the incomplete enumeration prevents a perfect score, as it could confuse agents relying on the prose.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of context. It does not explain when to choose this over siblings, omits valid types, and discloses no behavior. Given the large sibling set, more context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and describes both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. However, the description's list of dataset types is incomplete (missing portfolio_holdings and portfolio_metrics), which can mislead agents into thinking only 8 types exist. It adds no extra meaning for the limit parameter.

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 states the tool retrieves NPS reference datasets and enumerates several dataset types, distinguishing it from siblings like get_nps_holdings and get_nps_metrics. However, it omits two enum values (portfolio_holdings, portfolio_metrics) visible in the schema, which slightly weakens completeness.

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 the many NPS-related siblings (e.g., get_nps_holdings, get_nps_metrics, get_nps_nav_history). The description only states what it returns, without any when-to-use or alternative exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves details, without mentioning whether it is read-only, what output format to expect, how errors are handled, or whether the data is static or dynamic. This is minimal for a tool that may have side effects or require special permissions.

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 that wastes no words. It delivers the core purpose immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate but leaves 'full details' undefined. Given siblings that cover specific aspects (holdings, metrics, NAV history), it is unclear whether this tool returns a superset or just basic scheme information, making the description incomplete for confident tool selection.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear example ('SM001001') and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details for an NPS scheme' clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (NPS scheme). It distinguishes from aspect-specific siblings like get_nps_holdings and get_nps_metrics by implying a comprehensive view, though it doesn't specify which fields are included.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_nps_schemes or get_nps_reference. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, required permissions, or limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 wasted words. It is concise while still conveying the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what metrics are included or how they are presented. It simply states 'performance metrics' without specifying the exact metrics, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 already provides full parameter documentation with format examples, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get) and resource (SIF strategy), and the 'SIF' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling metrics tools like get_gift_metrics or get_nps_metrics. However, it does not elaborate on what 'performance metrics' includes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus get_metrics, get_trailing_returns, or other sibling tools. The description only states the general purpose without any context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns are percentages for specific periods, which is adequate for a simple getter. It does not detail output structure or any potential side effects, but none are expected for a read-only query.

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 that conveys all essential information without wasted words. Every word earns 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return data (periods, percentages) and the schema covers the parameter, making it complete for the complexity level. A slight improvement could be mentioning that it applies to a mutual fund scheme.

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 100% (scheme_code is described as 'AMFI scheme code'), so the description does not need to add further parameter details. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'trailing returns' and enumerates exact periods (1W, 1M, 3M, 6M, 1Y, 3Y, 5Y), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_latest_nav or get_holdings.

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 implies usage when trailing returns are needed, and the specified periods make the intended use clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_metrics or get_fund.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes fund count and alphabetical sorting, but it is ambiguous whether 'with fund count' means every AMC has a count or only AMCs that have funds. It also does not mention edge cases like empty lists or whether this operation is read-only, though 'List' implies so.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the additional details (fund count, sort order) are relevant and concise.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information (AMCs, fund count, alphabetical order). However, the ambiguity about 'with fund count' slightly reduces completeness; a clearer phrasing like 'including the number of funds for each AMC' would be ideal.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% schema coverage). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter information and none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('all AMCs') and unique scope ('with fund count, sorted alphabetically'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or list_funds_in_category.

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 implies usage: if you need a list of all AMCs, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would be a 5. There is no stated exclusion or contrast with sibling list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'List' operation but does not disclose details like return format, pagination, rate limits, or safety guarantees. The phrase 'with fund count' adds some context but is insufficient.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core function and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple no-parameter list tool, the description adequately states what is returned (categories with fund counts). There is no output schema, but the description covers the essential information needed to understand the tool's output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the tool lists all SEBI mutual fund categories and includes fund counts. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SEBI mutual fund categories'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_amcs and list_funds_in_category.

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 implies usage for retrieving categories but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like list_funds_in_category exist, but no guidance is given on when to choose this over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions ranking by metric, but it does not explain pagination behavior (e.g., the limit parameter, which contradicts 'List all funds' if a limit is set), nor does it mention return format, exact-match requirements for category, or error scenarios. The description is too sparse for full 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavior. It is concise without redundancy, earning full marks for structure and brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the response format, default behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. It fails to mention return values or how it differs from other list/search tools, leaving the AI agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, sort_by, category). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond confirming the SEBI category context, which is already in the category parameter description. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('funds in a SEBI category') with an additional clarifying detail ('ranked by a chosen metric'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories (lists categories) and list_amcs (lists AMCs).

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 implies usage for retrieving a ranked list of funds within a specific SEBI category, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like screen_funds or search_funds. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it earns a mid-level score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (fund metadata, TER, benchmark, latest NAV) and the scope of the list. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or data source freshness, but for a zero-parameter list operation, the disclosure is solid and useful.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'List', and contains no redundant or filler wording. Every phrase adds context about the fund type and return fields.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is listed and what is returned. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools, but the defined universe of GIFT City funds provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('GIFT City IFSC retail funds'), and defines what those are (USD-denominated offshore mutual funds for NRIs and global investors). This specificity distinguishes it from broader tools like list_funds_in_category or search_funds.

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 implies its use case by defining the exact universe of funds, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need all GIFT funds' or exclusions. Sibling names are available, but no comparison is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not mention data currency, ordering, pagination, or any potential limitations. The 'all 57' implies completeness but without details, the behavioral profile is thin.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every element ('all 57', field list) adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. It lacks a note on data date or formatting, but the low complexity and clear scope make it largely adequate. Not quite exhaustive, hence 4.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already communicates that no inputs are needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable; the baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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?

Starts with a specific action verb 'List' and a clear resource ('all 57 SIF strategies'), then enumerates the returned fields ('AMC, category, and latest NAV'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sif_metrics, which suggests a broader overview tool.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining an overview of all SIF strategies, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as list_funds_in_category or get_sif_metrics. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns a ranked list, which is useful, but does not disclose how ranking is determined, whether all funds are screened, or any limitations. The lack of details on side effects or read-only nature is a gap for an unannotated 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 two sentences with no filler. It states the core action and the output format, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The schema covers the filter parameters well, but the description leaves ambiguity about the ranking methodology and how criteria combine. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify ranking basis. Given the optional parameters and clear parameter descriptions, the tool is mostly usable, but the ranking gap prevents a higher score.

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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond 'quantitative criteria,' which is generic. Since the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., limit, max_ter, category), the description does not need to compensate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Screen and filter funds using quantitative criteria.' The verb 'screen' is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like search_funds or list_funds_in_category, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'quantitative criteria' adds distinctiveness.

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 implies usage for when a user needs to filter funds by quantitative metrics and receive a ranked output. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_funds or get_fund. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (search) and filters, which are minimal. It does not disclose the default result limit (3), pagination behavior, return format, or safety profile, but for a read-only search tool, the implicit behavior is straightforward. This adds minimal context beyond the purpose, earning a 3.

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 of 14 words, beginning with the verb 'Search.' It efficiently conveys the purpose and optional filters with no redundant wording. This is exemplary conciseness, earning a 5.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention the default result limit (3), that results are limited, how SIF strategies fit in, or the return payload shape. An agent might incorrectly assume all matches are returned, which could affect invocation. The schema provides parameter details but not behavioral context, so the description falls short.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'SEBI category or AMC' which is already in the schema parameter descriptions. It does not add new meaning to parameters like 'limit' or 'include_sif.' Thus, the description adds no meaningful value beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Search mutual funds by name keyword.' It specifies the resource (mutual funds) and the verb (search), and the optional filters (SEBI category or AMC) add specificity. This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_nps_schemes,' which searches NPS schemes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for mutual funds by name keyword. It mentions optional filters, implying the tool is appropriate for name-based searches with optional refinement. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use a different tool (e.g., 'list_funds_in_category' for browsing all funds in a category), but the intended use is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (search/list) and filter dimensions, but does not mention return format, pagination, default/max limits, or whether searches are exact or fuzzy. It is not misleading, but it is rather minimal for a search 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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase adds value.

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?

For a simple search tool with full schema coverage, this one-line description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the action, and the available filters. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_funds or get_nps_scheme, and does not state the read-only nature (which is otherwise obvious for a search), but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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 100% as all five parameters have descriptions. The description merely paraphrases the parameter fields ('scheme/PFM name, tier, plan, or PFM') without adding new meaning such as query syntax, filter interplay, or formatting rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search or list') and identifies the resource ('National Pension System (NPS) schemes') along with the filter dimensions (scheme/PFM name, tier, plan, PFM). This clearly distinguishes the tool from similar siblings like search_funds, which targets mutual funds, and get_nps_scheme, which likely retrieves a single scheme.

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 implies the tool is for searching or listing NPS schemes, which provides some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_funds or get_nps_scheme, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings. The guidance is indirect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.