Find all funds that hold a specific stock (by name partial match or ISIN).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max funds to return (default: 20) | |
| identifier | Yes | Stock name (partial match) or ISIN |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear prefixes (gift, nps, sif) separating fund types. Some overlap exists among metrics/returns tools, but descriptions clarify their specific scope. Overall, an agent can differentiate tools without much ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_fund, list_categories, screen_funds). Verbs are standardized (get, list, search, compare, find, screen), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
At 28 tools, the set exceeds the 'too many' threshold. While the domain covers multiple fund types, the count is excessive; several tools (e.g., get_metrics, get_gift_metrics, get_nps_metrics) could be consolidated with parameters. This may overwhelm agents.
The tool surface is comprehensive for a read-only mutual fund data server. It covers search, comparison, screening, NAV history, holdings, quantitative metrics, benchmarks, and specialized segments (GIFT, NPS, SIF). No critical gaps were identified.
